The brand writes: "we would love a video with your daughter trying the product". It looks like a casting decision and it is four separate legal decisions, with four separate texts and four separate people deciding.
Almost all the damage done in this area comes from treating them as one and settling it with a signature.
The four axes
Before answering the brand it helps to see the whole map, because each axis is settled on its own and none of them covers the others.
| Axis | Where it lives | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| The minor's right to their own image | Organic Law 1/1996, art. 4 | the legal representatives, with a limit the article itself imposes |
| The minor's personal data | Organic Law 3/2018, art. 7 | the minor from age 14, below that the holders of parental authority |
| Advertising aimed at minors | Law 13/2022, art. 124 | the brand, when it defines the message |
| The minor's participation as work | Workers' Statute, art. 6.4 | the labour authority, in writing |
Four boxes, four answers. Having the first settled says nothing about the other three.
What consent does not fix
This is the point that surprises everyone, and it is written out in full.
Article 4.3 of Organic Law 1/1996 treats as an unlawful interference with a minor's honour, privacy or own image any use of their image or name in the media that may harm their honour or reputation, or that runs against their interests, even where the consent of the minor or of their legal representatives is on record.
Read that last part slowly. A parental signature does not cure the problem. There is content that does not become lawful because someone authorised it, and the assessment is made on the minor's interest, not on the will of whoever signs.
The same article adds that the dissemination of information or the use of a minor's images or name that may amount to an unlawful interference triggers the intervention of the Public Prosecutor, who may act of their own motion.
What this changes in practice
It changes the question you have to ask. It is not "do I have the authorisation?", it is "could this content harm this child ten years from now?".
A video exposing a school difficulty, a health problem, a family conflict or a minor's body is not improved by a clause. And whoever produces on commission carries a responsibility here that no contract can shift to the brand.
The authorisation almost nobody requests
Article 6.4 of the Workers' Statute provides that the involvement of minors under sixteen in public performances shall be authorised only in exceptional cases by the labour authority, provided it poses no danger to their health or to their professional and personal development, and that the permit must be in writing and for specific acts.
Three details of the text matter: the authorisation is prior, it comes from the labour authority and not from the parents, and it is granted for specific acts, not as a general permission.
Where the limit sits, honestly
Whether a commercial video for social media is a public performance for these purposes is not something the text settles on its own, and it would be dishonest to present it as a certainty either way.
What can be said is this. Paid production of commercial content fronted by a child under sixteen looks considerably more like what this rule contemplates than a family video does, and the prudent route is to raise it with the labour authority of the autonomous community before the shoot, not after. The enquiry is free and the alternative is not.
When the video is aimed at minors
A different axis: here the minor is not in front of the camera, they are on the other side of it.
Article 124.1 of the General Audiovisual Communication Act prohibits audiovisual commercial communications from causing physical, mental or moral harm to minors, and lists specific conduct. Among it: directly inciting minors to buy by exploiting their inexperience or credulity; directly encouraging them to persuade their parents to buy advertised goods; exploiting the special trust minors place in parents, teachers or other people; and showing them, without justified reason, in dangerous situations.
Paragraph 2 adds a rule for products specifically aimed at minors, such as toys: the communication must not mislead as to their characteristics, their safety, or the ability and skills a minor needs to use them without harming themselves or others.
Anyone who has ever written a toy campaign script will recognise that paragraph 2 fences off precisely the most tempting devices.
Appearing and addressing are not the same
Worth separating, because it gets confused daily. A minor appearing in the video triggers the image axis, the data axis and, where relevant, the labour one. A message aimed at a child audience triggers, by contrast, article 124, and it does so even if no minor is on screen.
The two can occur together, separately or not at all. A school supplies campaign fronted by adults and aimed at children sits in the second case and in none of the others. A family video about a blender, with a child in the background, sits in the first. Confusing them means reviewing the wrong thing and missing the right one.
The minor's data
The fourth axis is short and has a figure worth memorising: fourteen years.
Article 7 of Organic Law 3/2018 provides that the processing of a minor's personal data may be based on their consent only where they are over fourteen. Below that, processing based on consent is lawful only where the consent of the holder of parental authority or guardianship is on record, to the extent they determine.
That threshold is independent of the other three axes. A fifteen-year-old may consent to the processing of their data and still need everything else.
What data is actually processed on a shoot
It is worth grounding, because in the abstract it stays invisible. A piece featuring a minor processes their image and their voice, often their name, frequently the inside of their home, and regularly elements identifying their school, their team or their neighbourhood without anyone having decided so: a crest on a hoodie, a locker, a sign in the background.
To that is added the material that is not published and is kept anyway, which is the discarded footage. How long those files live and who holds them belongs to data protection during production, and is dealt with separately.
What is decided before the shoot
Four checks, in this order, before accepting the job.
- The content itself, assessed by the minor's interest and not by the authorisation available.
- The legal representatives' authorisation, with its scope and duration written down.
- The enquiry to the labour authority if the minor is under sixteen and the production is paid.
- The message, reviewed against article 124 if the piece addresses a child audience.
Sources
- Organic Law 1/1996 on the Legal Protection of Minors, art. 4
- Organic Law 3/2018 on Data Protection, art. 7
- Law 13/2022, General Audiovisual Communication Act, art. 124
- Workers' Statute, art. 6
Checked on 10 September 2026. This guide is not legal advice and does not replace an examination of the individual case. Where this guide and the official source diverge, the source prevails.
