Free model release template
with every clause that protects you and your subjects.

Why it matters: The release must identify who is giving consent (the model or subject), who is receiving the consent (the photographer or company), and whether the consent extends to the photographer's clients, licensees, and successors. A release signed in favor of only the photographer does not protect a brand that subsequently licenses the images — leaving the brand exposed.

What Clausio checks: That the model, the photographer or production company, and any intended downstream beneficiaries (brands, licensees) are identified. Flags if the release benefits only the photographer without covering the brand or end client.

Legal basis: Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 9, 12–17 (1981) — contract formation requires identifiable parties with legal capacity. The scope of the consent grant determines who is protected; a release is construed narrowly against the party who drafted it. [Confidence: medium — Restatement is widely adopted persuasive authority; ALI text is paywalled]

Why it matters: A model who consented to appear in a lifestyle shoot for a wellness brand has not necessarily consented to appear in an alcohol advertisement. Without a description of the shoot, a subject can argue that the specific use was not contemplated and therefore not covered by the release.

What Clausio checks: That the release describes the shoot (date, location, general nature of the content), so the scope of consent is tied to a specific session rather than being entirely open-ended.

Legal basis: Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 201–203 (1981) — ambiguities in consent documents are construed against the party who drafted them. [Confidence: medium]

Why it matters: This is the core operative clause of any model release. It defines what the recipient may do with the images or footage. A release that grants rights to "any use" may be broader than the model intended and, in some states, may be scrutinized for unconscionability if signed without consideration. A release scoped to specific uses — print advertising, social media, website — is clearer and less likely to generate disputes about whether a particular use was covered.

What Clausio checks: That permitted uses are specified (advertising, editorial, social media, stock licensing, broadcast), that geographic scope is stated, and that any uses that are expressly excluded (adult content, political advertising, endorsements of products not discussed at signing) are named.

Legal basis: The right of publicity — the right to control commercial use of one's name, image, and likeness — is a state-law right that exists in some form in most US states. The scope of protection, the duration, and available remedies vary significantly by jurisdiction. A clearly scoped written release is the primary mechanism for obtaining valid consent for commercial use. Right-of-publicity law is not governed by a single federal statute; it is state-specific. Consult counsel for uses involving subjects in states with strong right-of-publicity laws (California and New York, among others, have well-developed case law and statutes in this area). [Confidence: general principle high; specific state law varies — no single statute cited]

Why it matters: A model release that is silent on duration creates ambiguity about whether the consent was perpetual or for a limited campaign period. Courts in some states have construed silent-duration releases narrowly. A brand building an evergreen content library needs perpetual rights; a model working for a time-limited campaign may want a defined expiration.

What Clausio checks: That the duration of the grant is stated — either as a fixed term, a campaign period, or explicitly perpetual. Flags if duration is absent entirely.

Legal basis: Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 201–203 (1981) — ambiguities construed against the drafter. State right-of-publicity law in several jurisdictions construes consent grants narrowly where duration is not specified. [Confidence: medium]

Why it matters: A release with no consideration — no payment, no product, no other benefit — may be unenforceable as a gratuitous promise. Most model releases specify either a payment amount or acknowledge the model's receipt of a non-monetary benefit (participation in the production, copies of the images). Even nominal consideration ($1) supports enforceability in most jurisdictions.

What Clausio checks: That the release specifies either a payment amount or acknowledges the consideration the model is receiving. Flags if consideration is entirely absent.

Legal basis: Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 71–79 (1981) — consideration is required for an enforceable contract; a promise without consideration is generally unenforceable. Past consideration (services already rendered) generally does not support a contract formed after the fact. [Confidence: medium — Restatement persuasive authority; ALI text is paywalled]

Why it matters: A minor (under 18 in most states) cannot enter a binding contract. A model release signed only by a minor is voidable at the minor's election — meaning the minor (or their guardian) can disaffirm it at any time, including years after the images were used commercially. A parent or legal guardian must co-sign a model release for a minor for it to be enforceable. Even a parent's signature may be subject to disaffirmance in some states after the minor reaches majority.

What Clausio checks: Whether the subject is a minor. If so, flags if a parent or legal guardian co-signature line is absent. Also flags if there is no representation that the co-signer has legal authority to bind the minor.

Legal basis: Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 12–14 (1981) — a minor's agreement is generally voidable at the minor's election upon reaching majority. State laws on parental authority to bind minors in entertainment and modeling contexts vary; California and New York, for example, have specific statutes governing minors' contracts in entertainment (court approval may be required for certain engagements). [Confidence: medium — general common law principle high; state-specific entertainment minor statutes vary]

Why it matters: Without this clause, a model may attempt to assert a right to approve each use of their image before publication — which is not a default legal right but is sometimes claimed. A photographer or brand building a content library cannot operationally obtain approval on every downstream use. This clause documents that the model waived any such approval right at signing.

What Clausio checks: That the release includes a waiver of any right to inspect or approve final images, captions, advertising copy, or other content in which the model's likeness appears. Flags if this waiver is absent for commercial use releases.

Legal basis: Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 201–203 — a release that is silent on approval rights is ambiguous; the drafter bears the risk of that ambiguity. [Confidence: medium]

Why it matters: Right-of-publicity law is entirely state-specific. The choice of governing law in a model release can determine whether a claim exists at all, what remedies are available, and whether post-mortem rights apply. A dispute resolution clause (arbitration, small-claims carve-out, mediation-first) provides a more proportionate forum for what are typically limited-value disputes.

What Clausio checks: That governing law is specified and that a dispute resolution mechanism is named. Notes that the choice of governing law has substantive implications for right-of-publicity claims.

Legal basis: Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187 (1971) — courts enforce the parties' chosen governing law unless the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the transaction or applying it would violate a fundamental policy of the state with the greater interest. [Confidence: medium]
Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2 (high confidence) — a written arbitration clause "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable" save for standard contract defenses.