A brand books a six week campaign. The video outlives it by years, on a page nobody remembers to clear out, in an ad account that reruns last year's best performer.
That gap is the whole subject. For an adult it is a professional risk you took knowingly. For a child it is a decision someone else made about them, before they could have a view, and they will have one eventually.
Two different requests wearing one sentence
Briefs say with your kids as though it were one thing. It is two, and they are priced and decided differently.
A child in the frame
A hand reaching in, a back of a head, laughter offscreen, a bowl being pushed across a table. The video is about the product and a child happens to be in the room, which is what family life looks like and what makes the footage work.
A child carrying the video
The child speaks, reacts, is the reason the ad is watchable. Here the child is the talent. That is a different job with different consequences, and it is the one where the fee should stop being a favour and start being a rate.
There is also a third option nobody offers you, and it is often what the brand actually needs: film around the child. A second bowl on the table, two toothbrushes by the sink, a smaller coat by the door. The family reads without anybody appearing at all.
| How the child appears | What the brand gains | What you cannot take back |
|---|---|---|
| Not at all, implied by objects | Most of the warmth, none of the risk | Nothing |
| Hands, back of head, offscreen voice | A real household | Very little, if the face never shows |
| Face, briefly, in a wider shot | Authenticity the studio cannot fake | A recognisable image, once it circulates |
| Speaking to camera | The performance the ad rests on | A searchable public record of a child |
Read down the last column rather than across the rows. It is the only column that still exists in five years, and it is the one no fee changes.
Three things in writing, and they are not the usual three
Ordinary usage terms are not enough here, because the thing being licensed is a person.
Put an end date on the usage, not a rolling licence. Name the places it may run rather than granting everything, so that a video shot for one retailer's page does not become a paid ad on a platform you would not have chosen. And ask for a removal clause: if you withdraw consent, the material comes down within a stated period.
Brands agree to all three more often than creators expect. The ones that refuse a removal clause are telling you something useful about how long they intend to keep the file.
What no clause can give back
A contract governs the brand. It does not govern the internet.
Once a video has run publicly it can be saved, reposted, stitched and archived by people who never signed anything, and no removal clause reaches them. That is not an argument against ever doing it. It is the reason the decision belongs at the shoot and not at the invoice, because the only real control you have is what you filmed in the first place.
Where the UK adds a layer
Two things sit on top of the personal decision.
What the advertising rules expect
Advertising rules here treat ads involving children with particular care, and what applies depends on the product, the claim and who the ad is aimed at. That is a question for the brand's compliance side and for the ASA's own guidance, not for you to work out on set. Ask the brand directly whether the concept has been cleared for a child to appear in it. A brand that cannot answer has not checked.
Other people's children
A school, a party, a playground, another family in the background: the answer is no without written permission from their parent, every time.
This is the part that stops a delivery cold, because a legal team scanning a video for faces nobody cleared will find one you stopped noticing weeks ago.
Saying no without losing the client
Refuse the version, not the brief.
Offer what you can deliver in the same message: no face, hands and voice only, the objects that imply a family, and a second creator if the brand truly needs a child on camera. That is a professional answer rather than a moral one, and it usually gets the job, because what the brand wanted was a household and not specifically your daughter.
Keep reading
- Someone in a uniform is walking towards you
- The sound was in the app, so it is cleared
- You Did Not Sell Them Views
- What Goes in the Box
- The complete UGC guide for the UK
Frequently asked questions
Should my child be paid separately?
If the child carries the video, price it as a performance rather than as a prop, and keep that money for them. The point is less the amount than treating the appearance as work that was done.
What if my co parent disagrees?
Then it does not happen. A shared decision that only one parent made is a dispute waiting for the ad to be seen, and no fee is worth arriving at that.
Can I take a video down later?
Only if you wrote that in. Ask for it before the shoot, because after delivery you are asking for a favour rather than exercising a term.
What about my older child who wants to appear?
Their enthusiasm is real and it is still not consent to a permanent public record. A reasonable middle is a short window, named platforms, and a promise that it comes down when they ask.