Free Photo and Video Release Form
A free photo and video release in Word, with state right of publicity statutes, consent scope, minors, crowd shots and what revocation can undo.
What is in the form
The download is a complete, editable photo and media release in Word format. It opens with a capitalised warning, names the parties, and then runs through these numbered sections. The shared clauses are the same across every Waiver.com template, so a business using several forms keeps one consistent voice.
- Grant of Permission. I give the Business and the people working on its behalf permission to photograph me, and to record my image, voice, name and likeness in video and audio, during [describe the occasion, e.g.
- Scope of Use and Media. The Business may use the Material for the following purposes only: [describe the purposes, e.g.
- No Compensation. I understand that I will not be paid or receive any other compensation for this permission or for the Business's use of the Material, now or in the future, unless a separate written agreement between us says otherwise.
- Ownership and Approval. I understand that the Business owns the Material and any copyright in it, and that I do not have the right to inspect or approve the finished Material, the wording that accompanies it, or the way it is used within the scope described above.
- What I Understand About Publication. I understand that once the Material is published, particularly online, the Business cannot fully control what happens to it.
- Revocation for Future Use. I may withdraw this permission at any time by writing to [Business Contact Email].
- Parent or Guardian Consent (for a person under 18). I am the parent or legal guardian of the minor named below and I have the legal authority to sign for them.
- Electronic Signatures and Records. I agree that this document may be signed electronically and that an electronic signature, and an electronic copy of the signed document, have the same legal effect as a handwritten signature and a paper original.
- Severability. If any part of this document is found to be invalid or unenforceable, that part will be limited or removed to the minimum extent necessary and the rest of the document will remain in full force and effect..
- Governing Law and Venue. This document is governed by the laws of the State of [State], without regard to its conflict-of-law rules.
- Entire Agreement. I have read this entire document, I understand it, and I am signing it voluntarily.
- Participant information and signatures. 6 information fields, a signature block for the participant and a separate block for a parent or legal guardian.
A photo and video release is a permission document. The person appearing in a photograph or a recording agrees that a business may use their image, voice, name and likeness for stated purposes. It is the document behind the class photo on a website, the highlight reel from a race, the testimonial video, the open day gallery and the advertisement that uses a real customer instead of a stock model.
This page explains what the release does, the legal rights it addresses, how to set the scope, who signs for a child, and how to collect it without turning check-in into a queue. It is general information and not legal advice; a lawyer in your state should read your wording before you publish it.
What it is, and what it is not
A photo release is not a liability waiver, and the two solve unrelated problems. A release of liability deals with injury: it records that the participant knew the risks and gave up claims against the business for the harm the activity might cause. A photo release deals with identity: it records that the person is content for their likeness to be used in the ways the document names. Neither one does the other's job. If a photograph of a member injured on your premises is the issue, the waiver is the relevant document; if the complaint is that the photograph appeared in an advertisement, the release is.
Most businesses that photograph their customers need both documents, and should keep them visibly separate so nobody can argue that agreeing to be photographed was bundled with giving up a claim. Start with the liability waiver form for participation, and use the photo and media release for permission. The downloadable release says on its face that it is not a waiver of liability and does not affect the person's ability to take part, which is the sentence that keeps the two documents apart in the signer's mind and in a reviewer's.
The two legal theories behind it
Permission matters because using someone's likeness without it can be actionable on two overlapping theories.
The first is the right of publicity, a property-like right in the commercial value of a person's name, likeness, voice and other recognisable aspects of their persona. The Legal Information Institute describes it as preventing the unauthorised commercial use of an individual's name, likeness or other recognisable elements of their persona, and as giving the individual exclusive licensing rights over their identity for commercial purposes. Because it behaves like property, it can be licensed, assigned and in many states inherited, which is why several statutes carry on protecting it for decades after death.
The second is the common-law privacy tort of appropriation. The Legal Information Institute states that appropriation occurs when a defendant uses a plaintiff's name, likeness or image without their permission for commercial purposes, and that a newsworthy use does not fall under the tort. The Restatement position treats invasion of the right of publicity as most similar to the unauthorised appropriation of a name or likeness, which is why the two sets of cases cite each other constantly.
The practical point is that the protection reaches a business through different doors in different places. Only about half the states have distinctly recognised a right of publicity as such; others reach the same conduct through privacy law or unfair competition. Some states protect it by statute, some by common law, and a good number by both at once, with a statute that covers advertising and trade and case law filling the gaps around it. A signed release answers all of these at the same time, which is why it is worth collecting even where you are unsure which theory applies.
State right of publicity statutes
The table below lists the states where Waiver.com has fetched and read a statute creating a right of publicity, or a statutory privacy right covering the commercial use of a name, portrait, picture or likeness, with the citation, what the statute requires, and whether it expressly addresses consent for a minor.
Read the table for the shape of the rule as much as for the citation. Some statutes are old privacy provisions that turn on advertising and trade, such as the New York and Massachusetts sections. Some are modern property statutes that survive death, such as the Indiana, Ohio and Washington chapters. At least one, Texas, protects only deceased individuals, so a living Texan's claim comes from elsewhere. At least one, Arizona, is confined to a narrow class of people. Several, including California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, say in terms that a parent or guardian consents for a minor.
A state that is not in the table is a state Waiver.com has not sourced a statute for, which is not a finding that the state has none, and is certainly not a finding that using someone's likeness there is unregulated. Common-law protection exists in states with no statute at all, New Jersey being the usual example. Where the position is unsettled, treat that as a reason to get the signature rather than a reason to skip it. The New York liability waiver page and the California liability waiver page cover the broader legal environment in the two states that generate most of this litigation.
Getting the consent right
The value of a release is in its specifics. Six questions decide whether the document is worth having.
Which media, and which channels? Name them: website, social accounts, email, print, paid advertising, in-venue screens, third-party sites where your advertisements appear. "All media now known or hereafter devised" reads as comprehensive and persuades nobody.
For how long, and may third parties use it? Say whether the permission runs indefinitely or for a period, and say whether you may license the material to anyone else. Most businesses should promise not to sell or sub-license material of their customers, because that is the use people actually object to.
Is there any payment? Usually not, and the document should say so plainly, with the participation itself stated as the consideration.
Who owns the image? Ordinarily the business or the photographer owns the copyright, and the subject owns nothing. Saying so avoids a later argument, as does saying whether the subject may request a copy.
Can permission be withdrawn, and what can withdrawal actually undo? Allow written withdrawal, commit to stopping new use and removing material from channels you control within a stated number of days, and be honest that printed material already distributed, copies other people have made, and finished video in which the person appears briefly cannot be recalled.
How may the material be edited, and in what context? Cropping, colour work and assembling a montage are ordinary. Using someone's face next to a claim they never made, or in a political or endorsement context, is not. Say which side of that line you will stay on.
This is why a narrow grant beats "any and all purposes forever" in practice. The broad grant is the easier one to attack and the harder one to live up to; the specific one tells the signer what will happen and tells your marketing team what they may do.
Minors
A child cannot give this permission. A parent or legal guardian must, and several statutes require it in writing. Record the guardian's name, their relationship to the child, and the same scope decisions you would take for an adult, then ask again each season or each enrolment rather than treating a consent given at age seven as covering a teenager.
Two extra cautions apply. In some states a person who was a minor when the permission was given may disaffirm it after reaching 18, so a release collected for a child is not permanent in the way an adult's is. And identification deserves its own answer: many programs take photographs of children happily and never publish a name, so make name use a separate opt-in rather than part of the same tick. The minor waiver outline covers the guardian block, and the camp waiver outline covers the enrolment pack where this consent usually belongs.
Crowds, events and signage
At a race, an open day or a busy class you cannot collect a signature from everyone in the frame. Signage-based notice is the standard answer: a clear sign at every entrance saying that photography and filming are taking place and how to opt out, repeated in the booking confirmation and in the event terms. That is reasonable practice, and for wide shots of a crowd it is often enough.
It is not enough for the picture you actually want to use. Once an individual is recognisable and featured, the sign stops carrying the weight, because it proves only what you displayed. Build an opt-out into check-in, give people who opt out something visible to staff and photographers such as a coloured wristband or lanyard, and get a signature from anyone you intend to feature. A signed record beats a sign on a wall for the same reason a signed waiver beats a posted notice: it names the person, the date and the text.
Employees, contractors and paid talent
Staff photographs are their own category. An employee who appears in recruitment material, on a team page or in an advertisement should sign a release like anyone else, and the release should say what happens when they leave, since that is the moment the request to take the picture down arrives. Contractors and instructors are not covered by an employee policy at all, so collect from them individually.
Paid talent needs more than a release. A model or presenter engagement covers the fee, the shoot, the usage period, the territory, exclusivity, renewals and reuse, and the release sits inside it as the permission layer. Treating a one-page release as the whole agreement with someone you are paying is the mistake that surfaces two years later when the material is still running.
How to run it
Decide first whether this is an optional block on your existing waiver or a separate form. A single optional block, clearly marked as optional and separately initialled, suits a gym or a tour where almost everyone signs one document anyway. A separate form suits a camp or a school program, where the consent decision is different from the participation decision and the guardian may want to say yes to one and no to the other. Either way, record the answer per person rather than per booking, because families split on this.
Honour the opt-out at the point the photograph is taken, not at the point it is published. A list that only the marketing team sees is useless to the person holding the camera, so the opt-out has to reach the floor: a flag on the check-in screen, a wristband, a note on the class roster. Then keep the record with the version of the wording that was shown, so you can say later exactly what this person agreed to. The guide on whether online waivers are legally binding explains why that pairing of record and version is the part worth engineering, and the camps page shows how a youth program threads consent through enrolment.
Sample wording
These clauses are quoted from the downloadable template. Square brackets are placeholders; replace them with your business, your activity and your state, then read the state page for everywhere you operate.
Grant of Permission
I give the Business and the people working on its behalf permission to photograph me, and to record my image, voice, name and likeness in video and audio, during [describe the occasion, e.g. our summer camp sessions, a class or event, a marketing photo shoot] (the "Activity") at [Location] on [Date or date range].
I give the Business permission to use, reproduce, edit, crop, combine with other material and publish those photographs and recordings (the "Material") for the purposes described in the next section. I understand that the Business is not obliged to use the Material at all.
Scope of Use and Media
The Business may use the Material for the following purposes only: [describe the purposes, e.g. promoting the Business's programs and services, illustrating its website and social media accounts, printed brochures and posters, paid advertisements, staff training]. It may use the Material in any medium, including its website, its social media accounts, email newsletters, printed materials, presentations and advertisements, and on third-party sites where its advertisements appear.
The Business will not sell or license the Material to anyone else for that person's own unrelated use, and it will not use the Material in a way that suggests I endorse a product or political position I have not agreed to endorse. Initial here if the Business may use my first name or full name with the Material: ______ . If I leave this blank, the Business may use the Material without identifying me by name.
Photo and Media Release, ready to edit.
An editable Word document with every section above, bracketed placeholders, signature blocks for the participant and for a parent or guardian, and a note reminding you to have a local attorney review it. Free, no email required.
Word (.docx), about 1000 words. This is a general template, not legal advice.Right of publicity statutes by state
Every jurisdiction is listed, and the table records the misses as well as the hits. A statute row was read at the linked source. A common law row is a state whose protection comes from its courts rather than its code, and the authority named is the decision that established it. A row that reads no statute located is a state where a targeted search of the code found none, so absence is never permission.
| State | Statute or authority | What it requires |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Alabama Right of Publicity Act; liability for use of indicia of identity without consent, Ala. Code § 6-5-772 | Makes any person or entity liable who uses the indicia of identity of a person, meaning name, signature, photograph, image, likeness or voice, on goods or for advertising, fund raising or false endorsement without consent. Liability may be found whether or not the use is for profit. |
| Alaska | No statute located | No right of publicity or unauthorised likeness statute was located for Alaska. A survey of state right of publicity statutes lists none for Alaska, and no Alaska appellate decision recognising the appropriation tort could be retrieved, so likeness claims rest on general privacy and tort law. |
| Arizona | Soldiers; unauthorized use of name, portrait or picture, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-761 | Bars using a soldier's name, portrait or picture for advertising, soliciting patronage or selling goods without prior authorization from the soldier, a spouse, an immediate family member, a trustee or a legal representative. The statute names a trustee, rather than a parent or guardian, as the person who may authorize the use when the soldier is a minor. |
| Arkansas | Property right in use of name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-1104 | Gives every individual a property right in the commercial use of a name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, requires the individual's prior consent for that use, and makes the right transferable and inheritable. |
| California | Use of another's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness without prior consent, Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 | Makes anyone who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on goods or in advertising without prior consent liable for the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars or actual damages plus profits. Yes. The section requires the prior consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian. |
| Colorado | Joe Dickerson & Associates, LLC v. Dittmar (common law) | Colorado has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court held in Joe Dickerson & Associates, LLC v. Dittmar that invasion of privacy by appropriation of another's name or likeness is a recognised tort in Colorado, subject to a privilege for newsworthy use. |
| Connecticut | Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc. (common law) | Connecticut has no right of publicity statute. In Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc. the Supreme Court first recognised invasion of privacy in the state and adopted the four Restatement categories, one of which is appropriation of another's name or likeness. |
| Delaware | Barbieri v. News-Journal Co. (common law) | Delaware has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court in Barbieri v. News-Journal Co. recognised invasion of privacy as part of Delaware law, listing appropriation of an element of a person's personality for commercial use as one of its four branches. |
| District of Columbia | Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Brothers (common law) | The District of Columbia has no right of publicity statute. The Court of Appeals in Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Brothers applied the Restatement formulation of invasion of privacy, which includes appropriation of a person's name or likeness for another's benefit. |
| Florida | Unauthorized publication of name or likeness, Fla. Stat. § 540.08 | Forbids publishing, printing, displaying or otherwise publicly using a name, portrait, photograph or other likeness for trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose without express written or oral consent. Yes. Consent for a minor is given by the guardian of the minor's person or by either parent. |
| Georgia | Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co. (common law) | Georgia has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court held in Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co. that publishing a person's picture without consent as part of an advertisement violates the right of privacy and is actionable without proof of special damage. |
| Hawaii | Infringement of right; use without consent; profit or not for profit, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 482P-5 | Treats it as infringement of a publicity right to use a living or deceased individual's name, voice, signature or likeness on goods, in advertising or for fund raising without the express or implied consent of the owner of the right. |
| Idaho | Peterson v. Idaho First National Bank (common law) | Idaho has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court in Peterson v. Idaho First National Bank recognised a common law right of privacy and set out its four branches, one of which is appropriation of a person's name or likeness to the defendant's advantage. |
| Illinois | Right of Publicity Act, use of an individual's identity, 765 Ill. Comp. Stat. 1075/30 | Bars using an individual's identity for commercial purposes during that individual's lifetime without previous written consent obtained from the person, from someone the Act designates, or from an authorized representative. |
| Indiana | Right of publicity; use requiring written consent, Ind. Code § 32-36-1-8 | Prohibits using an aspect of a personality's right of publicity for a commercial purpose during that personality's lifetime, or for one hundred years after death, without previous written consent. |
| Iowa | Winegard v. Larsen (common law) | Iowa has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court in Winegard v. Larsen adopted the Restatement invasion of privacy torts, which include appropriation of another person's name or likeness. |
| Kansas | Kunz v. Allen (common law) | Kansas has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court held in Kunz v. Allen that showing a person's photograph taken without consent in order to exploit a business violates the right of privacy and is actionable without proof of special damage. |
| Kentucky | Right of publicity of a public figure, Ky. Rev. Stat. § 391.170 | Protects the name or likeness of a person who is a public figure from commercial use for fifty years after death without the written consent of the executor or administrator of the estate. |
| Louisiana | Identity rights as property rights, La. Stat. Ann. § 51:470.3 | Treats an individual's identity rights, covering name, voice, signature, photograph, image, likeness and digital replica, as property rights that survive death, and requires a signed writing for any transfer or exclusive license. |
| Maine | Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt (common law) | Maine has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Judicial Court in Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt recognised the right of privacy in its four forms, one of which is appropriation of a person's name or likeness for the defendant's benefit. |
| Maryland | Lawrence v. A.S. Abell Co. (common law) | Maryland has no right of publicity statute. The Court of Appeals in Lawrence v. A.S. Abell Co. treated the republication of a photograph in a newspaper's own advertising campaign as an appropriation claim under the common law right of privacy. |
| Massachusetts | Right of privacy; unauthorized use of name, portrait or picture, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 3A | Gives a person whose name, portrait or picture is used within the commonwealth for advertising or trade purposes without written consent a civil action, with a narrow exception for a photographer displaying samples. |
| Michigan | Pallas v. Crowley, Milner & Co. (common law) | Michigan has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court in Pallas v. Crowley, Milner & Co. drew a line between a photographic likeness used as part of a legitimate news item and the same likeness used commercially in an advertisement for the user's own gain. |
| Minnesota | Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (common law) | Minnesota has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court in Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. recognised a right to privacy in the common law of Minnesota, including the tort of appropriation of another's name or likeness. |
| Mississippi | Candebat v. Flanagan (common law) | Mississippi has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court in Candebat v. Flanagan treated the use of a person's identity for commercial purposes without consent as the appropriation branch of invasion of privacy. |
| Missouri | Doe v. TCI Cablevision (common law) | Missouri has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court in Doe v. TCI Cablevision recognised a right of publicity claim, which requires proof that the defendant used the plaintiff's name or identity to gain a commercial advantage. |
| Montana | No statute located | No right of publicity or unauthorised likeness statute was located in the Montana Code Annotated. The chapter lists for Title 27 on civil liability, Title 30 on trade and commerce and Title 45 on crimes contain no publicity or likeness chapter, so the ground is left to general privacy and tort law. |
| Nebraska | Invasion of privacy; exploitation of person, name, picture, portrait or personality, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-202 | Makes any person, firm or corporation that exploits a natural person, name, picture, portrait or personality for advertising or commercial purposes liable for invasion of privacy, subject to news and public interest exceptions. |
| Nevada | Right of publicity; written consent required for commercial use, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 597.790 | Gives every person a right of publicity in name, voice, signature, photograph and likeness lasting for life plus fifty years, and requires the written consent of that person or a successor in interest before any commercial use, subject to news, artistic and sponsorship exceptions. |
| New Hampshire | Hamberger v. Eastman (common law) | New Hampshire has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court in Hamberger v. Eastman recognised the common law right of privacy and set out its four branches, including appropriation of a person's name or likeness for the defendant's benefit. |
| New Jersey | Canessa v. J.I. Kislak, Inc. (common law) | New Jersey has no right of publicity statute. Its courts protect name and likeness through the common law tort of appropriation, which Canessa v. J.I. Kislak, Inc. applied to the unauthorised use of names and photographs in a company's commercial material. |
| New Mexico | Moore v. Sun Publishing Corp. (common law) | New Mexico has no right of publicity statute. The Court of Appeals in Moore v. Sun Publishing Corp. relied on the four category framework of invasion of privacy, in which the right of publicity, also called appropriation, covers commercial exploitation of a person's name or likeness. |
| New York | Right of privacy; action for injunction and for damages, N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50 to 51 | Requires written consent before a living person's name, portrait, picture or voice is used for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade, and makes use without that consent a misdemeanour. Yes. Section 50 requires the written consent of the minor's parent or guardian. |
| North Carolina | Flake v. Greensboro News Co. (common law) | North Carolina has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court held in Flake v. Greensboro News Co. that the unauthorised use of a photograph in a newspaper advertisement or other commercial enterprise gives rise to a right of action. |
| North Dakota | No statute located | No right of publicity or unauthorised likeness statute was located in the North Dakota Century Code. A search of the full Century Code table of contents found only chapter 32-49 on unauthorised disclosure of intimate images, which is not a publicity right. |
| Ohio | Use of an individual's persona for a commercial purpose, Ohio Rev. Code § 2741.02 | Bars using any aspect of an individual's persona for a commercial purpose during that individual's lifetime, and for sixty years after death, without written consent, with exceptions for news and public affairs. |
| Oklahoma | Unauthorized use of another person's rights of publicity, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1449 | Makes anyone who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on products or in advertising without prior consent liable for damages and for any profits attributable to the use, with exceptions for news, public affairs, sport and political campaigns. Yes. In the case of a minor the section requires the prior consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian. |
| Oregon | Hinish v. Meier & Frank Co. (common law) | Oregon has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court in Hinish v. Meier & Frank Co. recognised the right of privacy where a person's name and personality were appropriated without consent and used for the defendant's own purposes. |
| Pennsylvania | Unauthorized use of name or likeness, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8316 | Gives a natural person whose name or likeness has commercial value a right of action when it is used for a commercial or advertising purpose without that person's written consent. Yes. A parent or guardian may give the written consent and bring the action for a minor. |
| Rhode Island | Right to privacy, R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-28.1 | Recognises a right to be secure from appropriation of a name or likeness, violated where the act was done without permission and benefits someone other than the claimant, with no need to prove publication. |
| South Carolina | Holloman v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia (common law) | South Carolina has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court in Holloman v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia accepted that invasion of privacy, including commercial use of a person's name without consent, can be an actionable tort, although it found no invasion on the facts. |
| South Dakota | Use of personality's right of publicity for commercial purpose without consent prohibited, S.D. Codified Laws § 21-64-2 | Bars using any aspect of a personality's right of publicity for a commercial purpose during that person's lifetime and for seventy years after death without express written consent, with exceptions for news, fine art and other expressive works. |
| Tennessee | Personal Rights Protection Act; infringement, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1105 | Makes it an infringement to knowingly use an individual's name, photograph, voice or likeness in any medium for advertising, fundraising or solicitation without the prior consent of the individual or a representative. Yes. The section treats a parent or guardian as the person who consents for a minor. |
| Texas | Property right in a deceased individual's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, Tex. Prop. Code § 26.002 | Gives an individual a property right in the use of a name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness after death, so the chapter does not reach the commercial use of a living person's likeness. |
| Utah | Abuse of personal identity, Utah Code § 45-3-3 | Treats personal identity as abused where an advertisement uses it in a way that expresses or implies an endorsement of the subject matter of the advertisement and consent has not been obtained. Yes. The consent of one of the minor's parents, or of the minor's legally appointed guardian, satisfies the section. |
| Vermont | Staruski v. Continental Telephone Co. of Vermont (common law) | Vermont has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court in Staruski v. Continental Telephone Co. of Vermont held that a damage remedy for invasion of privacy by appropriation of a person's identity, at least for commercial purposes, is available in Vermont, and that fame is not required. |
| Virginia | Unauthorized use of name or picture of any person, Va. Code § 8.01-40 | Applies where a person's name, portrait, picture, voice or likeness is used for advertising or trade purposes without first obtaining that person's written consent. Yes. For a minor the section requires the written consent of a parent or guardian. |
| Washington | Right of publicity; infringement, Rev. Code Wash. § 63.60.050 | Makes it infringement to use a living or deceased individual's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on goods, or for advertising, fundraising or solicitation, without the rights owner's consent, profit or not. |
| West Virginia | Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc. (common law) | West Virginia has no right of publicity statute. The Supreme Court of Appeals held in Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc. that invasion of privacy in West Virginia includes appropriation of another person's name or likeness. |
| Wisconsin | Right of privacy, Wis. Stat. § 995.50 | Treats as an invasion of privacy the use, for advertising purposes or purposes of trade, of the name, portrait or picture of a living person without first obtaining written consent. Yes. Where the person is a minor the statute requires the written consent of a parent or guardian. |
| Wyoming | No statute located | No right of publicity or unauthorised likeness statute was located in the Wyoming Statutes. Titles 1, 6 and 40 were searched and the only reference to a name or portrait is the trademark registration bar in section 40-1-102, which is not a publicity right. |
Photo and video release questions
Is a photo release the same thing as a liability waiver?
No, and the two are not interchangeable. A photo release is permission to use someone's likeness; a liability waiver is a release of injury claims. A business that photographs its customers doing something physical needs both, for completely different reasons, and they usually sit in different documents or at least in clearly separated blocks. Collecting only one leaves the other exposure open.
Do I need a signed release if I already put up a sign?
A sign at the entrance is better than nothing and is often the only practical answer for a crowd, but it is weak evidence. It proves what you displayed, not what any individual read or agreed to. Where you can identify the person, where the image will feature them rather than include them, and where they are a child, get a signature and keep it with the version of the wording they saw.
Can someone take their permission back?
Usually yes for future use, and usually no for what is already out. A well-drafted release says the person may withdraw permission in writing, that the business will stop using the material in new publications and remove it from channels it directly controls within a stated number of days, and that it is not required to recall printed material, re-edit finished video or chase copies other people have made. Say that plainly rather than promising more than you can do.
Who signs for a child?
A parent or legal guardian. Several state statutes say so expressly: New York requires a parent or guardian's written consent for a minor, California requires the prior consent of a parent or legal guardian, Florida allows either parent or the guardian of the minor's person, and Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Utah all name a parent or guardian. Keep the guardian's relationship to the child on the record, and ask again when the child returns for a new season.
Is "any and all purposes forever" the strongest wording?
It is the broadest wording, which is not the same thing. A sweeping grant is easier to attack as unclear, unconscionable or not what the person understood, and it puts a business in a poor position when someone objects. A specific grant that names the channels, the purposes and a period is narrower on paper and more defensible in practice, and it is far easier to honour.
Does a release replace a contract with a paid model?
No. A release grants permission to use a likeness. An engagement with paid talent also needs terms covering the fee, the shoot, usage period, exclusivity, territory, renewals and what happens if the material is reused later. Use the release as the permission layer inside that agreement, not as a substitute for it.
Sources and further reading
Primary and official sources consulted for this page. Statutes and opinions are linked to the legislature, the court or a case-law database; check the current text before relying on it.
- Legal Information Institute, right of publicity
- Legal Information Institute, appropriation
- N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50
- Cal. Civ. Code § 3344
- Fla. Stat. § 540.08
- Va. Code § 8.01-40
- Wis. Stat. § 995.50
- 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8316
- Utah Code § 45-3-3
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 3A
Get it signed before the day starts.
Paste your attorney-approved wording into the builder, publish a version, and collect signatures by link, QR code or kiosk with a time-stamped audit trail and the exact text each person saw.