Does a photographer have the right to sell images of me?

Short answer: yes he can.

Long answer: Your photography was right teacher was right about commercial use, but what he is doing is not considered commercial use. "Commercial" has a very specific meaning when it comes to photography. Specifically means implied endorsement in commercial advertising. For example, if he sold the images to the venue, and the venue used the images for an advertisement for the venue without your permission, that would be illegal.

What the photographer is doing is not considered commercial use even though he is making money. His right to sell the images for editorial use, including prints and digital downloads, is his protected right under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

What he is doing is standard practice for most concert and event photographers. It is perfectly normal and accepted.

Edit:

Just to reiterate, he has every right to sell your photo as a print or digital download to anyone who wants to buy it without your permission or the need for compensation.

Model releases are only needed for advertising. As Eric said, if a model release was needed for editorial use, no newspaper could ever publish a photo of anyone.

Edit 2: Editorial use in the U.S. includes anything that would be covered by the First Amendment. The obvious examples would be anything news related such as images accompanying articles in newspapers, magazines, or blogs. It also includes artistic expression which is pretty broad. This could include anything from prints to greeting cards. It also covers self promotion as well. This would allow the photographer to use the image on their website or social network page. There is a distinct difference between self promotion and advertising, which is generally defined by implied endorsement.

Pretty much everything but advertising is considered editorial. The content of the image is not as important as the context in which it was used. For example, let's say I took a picture of you drinking a can of Coke. I could legally sell that image to a magazine or newspaper for them to use in a story about people who drink Coke without your permission. However, if I took the same image and sold it to Coca-cola for them to use in a billboard ad for Coke, they would need your permission. I say they, because it is the person doing the advertising, not the photographer, that needs permission from the people in the photo. The reason you need permission is those cases, because the context of the image would lead someone to believe that the person in it is actually endorsing the product, and such endorsement is actually creating a financial benefit to the advertiser.

A model release transfers the right of endorsement (also known as personality rights) to the photographer to allow the photographer to transfer it to third parties.

"... that if we are to use any photographs commercially, the models must sign a release ..."

Commercially is more along the lines of using images of your likeness for publicity. There is a difference between saying "I'm selling prints of this concert" and saying "I'm the photographer for Fantera* Get your official Fantera photos here!"

*fictitious band name ... as far as I know.

I don't need a release from you if I am selling prints, or using the images as part of an editorial or in a photography book but using one of those images on a billboard advertising a steakhouse would require a release. So he couldn't sell those images at a micro stock site (except under the heading "Editorial Use Only") but selling you prints? No problem.

"If not illegal, is this a practice frowned upon in photography communities? I mean, he came to a free event, to photograph unpaid musicians so he could sell them on his website without consent."

No, it's not. Were there journalists there (let's pretend there were)? Did they take photos of the show (99.9% chance they did)? Were they paid to shoot those images (either as salaried photographers or as freelance?). That's how the industry works.

Try this on:

I mean, THE NEWSPAPER came to a free event, to photograph unpaid musicians so THEY COULD could USE THEM TO sell NEWSPAPERS without consent.

Amateurs like those do not really begin to see the art in photography. They believe that if they have all of this equipment that it will make their images "look good." For example, someone with just a point-and-shoot camera can take better images than an amateur photographer with an SLR and a bunch of unnecessary equipment. I've seen some basic disposable film photography even look better than from a photographer's SLR final images. There is more to it than the equipment. If you want to take boring studio images, hit up all of that equipment. If you are wanting originality and to create art, steer away from the popular camera bs. First, experiment with instant film, disposables,point-and-shoots, before ever investing into (most of which are unnecessary) equipment. Be sure you are good at composing and creating good images, learn how to use NATURAL light, then pursue with other experimental equipment. "Just because you bought a backdrop, a few lights, and a new lens for your camera. Does not mean you are going to take images like the magazine spreads,"

Probably.

He was more than likely operating under a site license from the owners of the venue; and if you'll check your contract (or venue's standard rules, if you didn't have a contract), you'll probably find that you've already given your consent to be photographed and have the images used commercially just by singing there.

Even if there wasn't such an agreement, he is under no obligation to *give* you shots of yourself for free. With no standard site agreement, he probably can't sell them to OTHER people for commercial gain, but that doesn't mean he has to give them to YOU for free.

The person whose image is used to generate revenue or promote a business is entitled to compensation for the use of his/her image. While the photographer in question hopes to generate revenue from his photos, the only person he seems to be selling them to is you. A commission or royalty payment in this situation is out of the question. On the other hand, if you became famous and he was mass-producing images for sale and making lots and lots of money by virtue of your image, it would make sense that you would seek compensation. It's a question of degree. In any event, your question would probably be best answered by a lawyer than a photographer.

You do not need to sign a model release if all he is doing is selling you your own photos. If he wants to sell them to someone else, then he needs your permission. If he is displaying them on his web site for other to see as a way of advertising his services, then he needs your permission. But it sounds like you need to buy them if you want to use them.