No, you do not need a model release for every shoot — but the line between "fine" and "lawsuit" runs through a single question: is the image used commercially, or is it editorial? Get that answer wrong in California, New York, or Tennessee and you are looking at statutory damages, injunctive relief, and potentially punitive damages before anyone even tallies actual losses. Here is how to figure out where your specific shoot lands.
What a model release actually does
A model release is a written contract in which a person grants a photographer, brand, or publisher the right to use their likeness — their face, voice, or other identifying characteristics — for purposes specified in the document. Without it, any commercial use of a recognizable person's image can trigger a right-of-publicity claim under state law.
Right of publicity is not a federal doctrine. Every state has its own version, derived either from common law, statute, or both. That patchwork is what makes blanket rules unreliable.
The commercial vs. editorial divide
The clearest dividing line in U.S. photo law is commercial versus editorial use.
Commercial use means the image is used to sell, endorse, or promote a product, service, or brand. Advertising campaigns, social media ads, packaging, branded content, and stock photography sold for commercial licensing all fall here. A model release is not optional for commercial use — it is a legal prerequisite.
Editorial use means the image illustrates news, commentary, art, or matters of public interest. A photojournalist covering a protest, a magazine story on urban architecture, a documentary about a neighborhood — these typically do not require releases because the publication falls under First Amendment protections. Courts have consistently held, under principles traceable to cases applying state right-of-publicity statutes, that editorial use tied to genuine news or public-interest coverage does not constitute exploitation of likeness for commercial gain.
The problem is that the line blurs constantly. A brand running an "authentic documentary-style" Instagram series, a publisher selling prints of street photos, a tech company using candid office shots in a recruitment video — all of these can cross into commercial territory even when the photographer believes the work is artistic or editorial. When in doubt, get the release.
State-by-state variation you cannot ignore
California
California's right of publicity statute, Civil Code § 3344, covers any "photograph, portrait, painting, drawing, sketch, model, or likeness" used knowingly for commercial purposes without consent. Minimum statutory damages are $750 per violation. California also has a common-law right of publicity that runs separately and does not cap damages. The statute applies to living persons; Civil Code § 3344.1 extends posthumous rights for 70 years after death.
New York
New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 prohibit the use of a living person's name, portrait, picture, or voice for advertising or trade purposes without written consent. Section 51 allows injunctive relief and damages, including punitive damages for knowing violations. New York's statute is narrower than California's — it focuses on advertising and trade, which courts have interpreted to exclude clearly editorial content — but "trade purposes" has been read broadly enough to catch many branded content arrangements.
Tennessee
Tennessee's Personal Rights Protection Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1101 et seq.) is one of the strongest right-of-publicity laws in the country and the one most relevant to AI-generated content. The state added an "algorithm-based use" provision that explicitly covers digital replicas and AI-generated likenesses. Tennessee is where the ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act) took effect in 2024, adding specific protections for voice cloning and AI-generated likenesses of real individuals.
Illinois
Illinois does not have a traditional right-of-publicity statute, but the Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14/) has been used in photography-adjacent cases when images are processed by facial recognition software. If you are running photos through AI tools that extract biometric identifiers, BIPA's consent requirements may apply regardless of whether the photos are commercial.
Minors require a different process
A minor — anyone under 18 — cannot sign a binding legal contract in any U.S. state. A model release signed only by the minor is unenforceable. A parent or legal guardian must sign, and the release should name the minor specifically while identifying the signer's parental or guardian relationship.
California has additional protections under the Coogan Law (Family Code §§ 6750–6753 and Labor Code § 1700.37), which applies when a minor works in entertainment, including commercial photography and modeling. Under Coogan, 15% of the minor's gross earnings must be set aside in a blocked trust account. If the shoot involves payment to the minor model, consult the applicable labor provisions in your state. Even for unpaid shoots, document that the parent reviewed and signed the release — do not rely on a parent verbally agreeing on set.
The AI-likeness trap in 2026
The fastest-growing risk category for photographers and brands right now is AI training and synthetic reproduction. If you photograph a person and later feed those images into an AI model for training, generate a synthetic likeness of that person, or allow a client to do so, you are likely violating their right of publicity in states with explicit AI provisions — even if the original shoot had a valid release.
Standard model release forms drafted before 2023 almost never covered AI training, digital replica generation, or synthetic media creation. A 2026 release should explicitly address:
- Whether the licensor may use images to train machine learning models
- Whether synthetic or AI-generated likenesses based on the images are permitted
- The scope of "digital likeness" rights, including voice, gait, and other biometric identifiers where state law covers them
Tennessee's ELVIS Act is currently the most explicit state law on this, but similar bills are under active consideration in Georgia, Indiana, and several other states. Federal legislation — including the NO FAKES Act introduced in the Senate — would establish a baseline if enacted. As of now, there is no federal right-of-publicity statute, so state law governs entirely.
Do not assume an old release covers new AI uses. Get a new one, or add a signed addendum.
When you do not need a release
There are genuine safe harbors, though none are absolute.
Public figures in public places for news: A politician photographed at a rally, an athlete captured during a public game, a celebrity photographed at a publicly accessible event — editorial coverage of genuinely newsworthy public activity typically falls outside the commercial-use requirement.
Art and commentary with transformative elements: Under the transformative use doctrine, which California courts developed in Comedy III Productions v. Gary Saderup (2001), highly transformative artistic work that adds significant creative expression beyond mere likeness reproduction may be protected. The doctrine is narrow and fact-specific; it is not a license to sell commercial portraits of celebrities under an "art" label.
Incidental inclusion: A crowd scene where no individual is identifiable, or a street photo where a person appears in the background without being the focus, generally does not require a release. The person must be recognizable — clearly identifiable — for a right-of-publicity claim to attach.
None of these exceptions apply to commercial advertising. If an image is going into an ad, get a release.
What a solid release must include
A model release for commercial photography in 2026 should cover, at minimum:
- Full legal names of the subject and the photographer or rights-holding entity
- Date and location of the shoot
- A clear grant of rights — what uses are permitted, in what media, for how long, and in what territory
- Whether the rights are exclusive or non-exclusive
- Compensation (even "$1 and other valuable consideration" is sufficient to create consideration)
- AI and digital likeness provisions
- A governing law clause specifying the state
- Parent or guardian signature for minors, with relationship stated
The photo and video release form at forms-legal.com covers these elements and is tailored to U.S. commercial photography contexts. Download a blank version, fill in the specifics of your shoot, and keep signed copies accessible for the life of the license.
Practical checklist before the shoot
- Identify every recognizable person who will appear in the final images.
- Confirm the intended use — commercial or editorial. If the client's plans are vague, assume commercial.
- For commercial use: have signed releases before the shoot starts, not after.
- For minors: verify the signatory is a parent or legal guardian.
- Check whether AI tools will be used post-production. If yes, add an explicit AI-use clause.
- Confirm the state whose law will govern — especially important for California and New York shoots.
- Store signed releases with the corresponding image files.
Getting a release after a problem surfaces is usually too late. The subject can refuse, memory of what was verbally agreed fades, and some right-of-publicity statutes do not allow retroactive consent to cure prior unauthorized use.
The bottom line
Model releases are not bureaucratic friction — they are the document that converts a shoot from a potential liability into a clean commercial asset. For editorial work that stays genuinely editorial, you often do not need one. For anything commercial, anything involving AI post-processing, or anything involving a minor, treating the release as mandatory is the only defensible position in 2026.
Need the document itself? Download the free template →
This article is general information, not legal advice — see our accuracy & editorial policy. Confirm the cited law is current before relying on it.