Filming an 8-year-old in a UGC video does not require one authorisation, it requires two, and the second one escapes almost every brand working in France. The first is the parents' consent, which everyone knows about. The second comes from the labour code, and it governs whether the shoot itself is lawful.
Two regimes that stack
The first is image rights. A minor cannot consent alone: the authorisation belongs to whoever holds parental authority, and it must be written, specific in its purpose, and limited in time.
The second is the law on child labour. When a minor takes part in a production with a commercial purpose, the labour code frames that participation, including for a short video shot at home. The classification does not depend on the set, it depends on the commercial purpose and on the child having a role in it.
This second regime is the one brands miss, because it does not look like what most people picture when they hear "shoot". A studio with lights triggers caution, whereas the same scene filmed on a phone in a kitchen does not, and the law draws no such distinction.
What triggers the labour regime
A child who happens to walk through the frame is not concerned. A child who plays a part, handles the product, speaks to camera or whose presence is necessary to the message, is.
The line is drawn on intent. If the brief asks for a child, that child is taking part in a commercial production, and the regime applies whatever the length of the shot. A fifteen-second video does not escape it by being short. Nor does a video the brand never paid for directly, if the brand wrote the brief.
What the regime changes on set
It frames how long the child can take part and at what hours, it requires schooling to be taken into account, and it provides that part of the fee be set aside for the child rather than paid in full to the parents.
For a brand, the practical consequence is simple: a shoot involving a child is planned, it is not improvised on a Wednesday afternoon because the slot happened to be free.
The creator's own child
This is the most common situation and the most misunderstood. A creator filming their own child is bound by the same rules: being the parent makes the authorisation easy to obtain, it does not remove the regime that applies to the child's work.
The Act of 19 October 2020 targeted exactly this situation, the commercial exploitation of the image of children under sixteen on online platforms. It creates obligations once the publishing becomes a money-making activity, and it provides that income derived from the child's image goes to the child under protective arrangements.
A brand commissioning a creator for a video featuring their child should therefore know that the creator, as a parent, carries obligations of their own. The contract cannot transfer them, but it can require that they have been met, and that requirement protects both sides.
What the contract must contain
| Contract clause | Who supplies it | Why it cannot be assumed |
|---|---|---|
| Written parental authorisation | Both parents | One parent is not always enough |
| The child's identity and age | The parent | The regime changes at sixteen |
| Precise authorised use | The contract | A blanket authorisation is fragile |
| Term of exploitation | The contract | It must be shorter than for an adult |
| Right of withdrawal | The contract | The child grows up and may ask |
The last row is what really separates a serious contract from a template. A child filmed at 8 may, at 15, ask for a video that embarrasses them to be taken down, and a brand that planned nothing ends up deciding under pressure, without knowing who decides or within what deadline.
The fourth row deserves the same attention. For an adult, a three-year licence is unremarkable; for a minor, the same period spans a complete physical change and an entry into social life that nobody can predict at signature.
Both parents' authorisation
A single parent rarely signs validly when the act is not a routine one, and commercial exploitation of a child's image is not routine. Asking for both signatures costs one message and avoids a dispute that, by contrast, always lands at the worst moment, usually after publication.
What a brand should refuse to commission
A video where the child delivers the sales pitch. Having a child say a product is the best turns an advertising claim into a child's word, something French advertising rules and professional recommendations treat harshly.
A video shot without the brand having seen the authorisation. Relying on the creator's statement that they obtained it leaves the brand exposed with no proof: in a dispute, the document counts, not good faith.
And reusing a video shot for organic distribution in paid advertising. Going paid changes the nature of the exploitation, and for a minor that difference weighs more than it does for an adult.
The creator's objection
"It's my child, I decide." True for the parental authorisation, false for everything else. Parental authority allows consent on the child's behalf, it does not remove the rules protecting the child against exploitation, including by their parents. That is precisely what the 2020 Act set out to restate.
Sources
- Labour code, employment of children in entertainment and advertising
- Act no. 2020-1266 of 19 October 2020 on the commercial exploitation of the image of children under sixteen on online platforms
- Civil code, article 9, respect for private life
- Service Public, a child's image rights
Checked on 7 September 2026. This guide is not legal advice. Where this guide and the official source disagree, the source prevails.
