Guides
Part of Images of minors: safety workflow from capture to removal
How to plan a child-centered image consent process
A child-centered image consent process starts with need, guardian authority and the child's own willingness, then follows the file to publication.
What to take away
- One adult usually holds legal authority, and the child's willingness is a separate gate. Both must open before you shoot.
- Split permission into separate choices for stills, video, name use, print, web, social, press and sponsor material, each with its own term and audience.
- In the US, authority comes from state child labor and publicity law, plus COPPA for under-13 data and FERPA for school records. Canada adds PIPEDA.
- Log the wording, the date, the verifying document and the child's answer, and keep that log out of shared drives.
- Give every approved file a removal date and a named contact who answers the phone.
Who can authorize a child's image
Authority is rarely one signature. Name the adult who can legally consent, then verify it in writing before the shoot. In most US states that is a parent or legal guardian, though a court order can change the answer.
Parties to name:
- the commissioning organization
- the school, club or program
- the photographer
- the publisher or platform
- the sponsor or advertiser
Our guide to images of minors across schools, clubs and platforms shows how those roles overlap when two organizations share one shoot.
US law arrives in layers. State child labor rules cover work permits, hours and, in California, a Coogan Law trust that holds 15 percent of a minor's gross earnings.
State right of publicity law controls commercial use of a face or voice. California Civil Code section 3344 is a common model, and other states take a different route.
COPPA governs websites and apps directed to children under 13. The FTC rule counts a photo or video holding a child's image or voice as personal information, which triggers verifiable parental consent.
FERPA covers education records at schools receiving federal funds. Many schools treat a student photo as directory information and release it unless a parent opts out. Check the Department of Education guidance before publishing campus material.
In Canada, PIPEDA applies to commercial organizations, and a photograph of an identifiable person is personal information. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner sets out the consent test.
Build the permission-choice table
Start with the outcome the image must produce. A detail shot, an illustration or no image at all can do the same work as a named portrait.
Choose identification level
Sensitive detail present?
Safeguarding professional decides
Compare identification options
A single yes does not cover a whole campaign. Offer separate choices and record each one.
- stills
- video
- audio
- the child's name
- internal display and a family portal
- print and public web
- social media
- press
- sponsor material
- portfolio and future campaigns
For every choice, state the term, the audience, the edits allowed, the platforms and a contact. Where a child can take part without being published, do not make publication a condition.
The guardian gets a full project notice and release. The child gets a short explanation in their own language, with an interpreter where needed. Ask the child to explain it back, and correct misunderstandings without coaching a yes. Say plainly that stopping is allowed.
Comparing a notice, a release and a licence helps you pick the right instrument for each audience.
Plan seating, framing, jersey markers or separate stations so a child who opts out is not singled out in front of peers.
Example: one completed permission row
| Use | Audience | Term | Edits | Contact | Child's answer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stills in a sponsor newsletter | Existing donors, by email | 12 months | Crop only | safeguarding@yourorg.org | Yes, no name |
| Short video on the public site | General public | 24 months | Crop and subtitle | safeguarding@yourorg.org | Yes, first name |
| Repost to the charity's own social channels | Followers | 6 months | None | safeguarding@yourorg.org | No |
The matching log entry:
14 March, 09:40. Guardian verified by photo ID, signed release attached, scope sheet attached. Child, age 9, asked twice: yes to stills, no to video. Refusal recorded. Review date 14 March next year.
Capture, ingest and publish
- At arrival, point out the official photographer and the route that avoids the camera.
- Before capture, say what happens next in simple terms.
- During capture, watch for discomfort and pause on any signal.
- At selection, show the chosen frame when that helps the child decide.
- Before a new use, return to the adult authority and the child's willingness.
At ingest, separate permitted files from declined, unresolved and test files. Guardian evidence goes into a restricted system, never the shared drive. Attach the agreed scope to each approved asset, then check the caption for hidden identifiers.
Three people sign off before publication. The safeguarding lead answers for welfare, the rights lead for scope, and the editor for presentation. Never auto-sync a camera roll to a public gallery. Our image consent guide covers retention and withdrawal in more depth.
Set removal dates and refresh triggers
Give each file an expiry date and a family contact who answers. Revisit long-running use as the child matures. Permission is not permanent.
Refresh triggers, listed once:
- a new purpose or audience
- a new platform, sponsor or advertiser
- a different edit
- paid reuse
- face recognition, synthetic media or training data
- a change in the child's capacity or views
Call a licensed attorney when the child appears in paid advertising, when compensation changes hands, or when a shoot crosses a state or national border. Call when a guardian refuses and you still want to publish.
