Fashion modelling law in 2025: France, the UK and US

Fashion modelling may project glamour, but behind the runway lies a tangle of labour law, tax regimes, union structures, and image rights that differ sharply between France, the UK, and the US. This article traces how modelling became a profession, & what fashion modelling law entails: it examines the employment and tax status of models, reviews the collective agreements and trade bodies that shape their work, and analyses how contracts and publicity rights regulate the use of their image — before turning to the disruptive impact of AI, which now threatens to redefine the very future of modelling. Let’s dive straight into it!

1. A short origin story (why modelling became a profession)

The practice of modelling was born in Paris, long before the existence of specialised agencies. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, couture houses such as Worth, Paquin, Poiret, Chanel and Schiaparelli relied on their own ‟mannequins de maison”—female employees who would present garments to clients in salons, pose for photographs, and even feature in images filed with the French intellectual property office to secure copyright and design protection. These in-house presentations tied modelling directly to both promotion and IP enforcement.

As haute couture expanded through the interwar years and beyond, the role of the model shifted from silent staffer to essential face of a brand: catwalk shows became regular spectacles, fashion magazines and advertising multiplied, and the demand for skilled presentation grew.

It was in the mid-twentieth century that modelling was professionalised into a stand-alone industry, no longer confined to couture salons. The first agencies appeared in New York, with John Robert Powers pioneering in 1923, followed by Walter Thornton (1930) and Harry Conover (1939), before Ford Models (1946) set the modern standard. In London, Lucie Clayton opened her agency and modelling school in 1928—making it one of the oldest institutions in Europe—followed later by Models 1 in 1968. Paris came latest to the model-agency business status, with Dorian Leigh and Catherine Harlé establishing agencies only in the late 1950s, and Elite arriving in 1972.

What began as internal ‟house mannequins” in Paris thus evolved, within decades, into a transatlantic agency system that made modelling a stand-alone profession.

2. Employment status, today

2.1. France

Default: employee. Any contract securing a model’s services is presumed to be a contract of employment, regardless of how the parties label it (freelance, service contract, invoice-based) or how payment is structured. French courts, URSSAF, and labour inspectors will systematically requalify such arrangements as ‟contrats de travail”. By law, a written contract is mandatory (Code du travail, art. R7123-1), and the model must also be shown the written mise à disposition contract between the agency and the end-user before accepting the job.

In practice: the employment agreement is normally between the model and the modelling agency, which then “places” the model with the end-user (‟utilisateur” — e.g. Dior, Chanel, advertising agencies such as Publicis). Example: a model signed with Elite Paris works a Dior Haute Couture show. Elite is the employer of record (contract, payslip, social charges). Dior, as the ‟utilisateur”, signs a ‟mise à disposition” and pays Elite. If Elite defaults on wages or contributions, Dior can be held liable as substitute employer. Where no agency is involved, the end-user itself becomes the direct employer, with full obligations under the ‟Code du travail”.

Remuneration of French agencies. French modelling agencies are not supposed to pay themselves by deducting from a model’s salary. Instead, they invoice the ‟utilisateur” a total fee consisting of the model’s gross salary plus an additional surcharge, the ‟frais d’agence”. The model is paid her gross salary (less employee social charges), while the agency’s commission — typically 20–40 percent of the salary amount, as set by practice and the collective agreement for models — is billed transparently to the end client. For example, if Elite Paris supplies a model to Dior for €1,000 gross, Dior’s invoice might be €1,300: €1,000 goes to the model as salary, €300 to Elite as its ‟frais d’agence”. This system is designed to prevent the ‟double-dipping” common in London or New York, where agencies often charge both client and model. In France, the agency’s remuneration must come from the client, not from deductions to the model’s pay.

Under pressure from the European Commission and the principles of free movement of workers and services (Articles 45 and 56 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‟TFEU”)), France was forced to temper its rigid presumption of employment. Since law n° 2011-302 of 22 March 2011 (and its implementing decree n° 2011-1001 of 24 August 2011), a model who is established in another European Union (‟EU”)/European Economic Area (‟EEA”) state, who habitually provides services there as an independent, and who comes to France only temporarily to work, may choose to operate outside the presumption of employment (C. trav., art. L.7123-4-1).

To rely on this exception, the model must:

Notify the local DIRECCTE (labour inspectorate) before starting work;

Declare the social security body to which she contributes in her home country (C. trav., art. R.7123-12-1), and

Show that the engagement in France is truly temporary and cross-border.

In theory, this mechanism allows an Estonian or Polish model to keep her “independent” status when flown in for Paris Fashion Week.

In practice, however, agencies and clients in France are risk-averse: they default to payroll treatment, with URSSAF ‟precomptes” and social charges withheld at source. Add to that the 2012 reform reclassifying royalties as ‟revenus du patrimoine” with extra CSG/CRDS, plus a special ‟cotisation maladie” for non-residents, and most foreign models still see their Paris earnings cut down far more sharply than in Milan, London, or New York. For many, the EU carve-out is a paper right, not a backstage reality.

In addition to the mandatory written “mise à disposition” contract that must be shown to the model before she accepts a job, modelling agencies are subject to a specific regulatory regime.

Licence. Agencies must hold a ‟licence d’agence de mannequins” (C. trav., art. L.7123-11). It is delivered by the préfecture (now the DIRECCTE services, i.e. ‟Direction régionale de l’économie, de l’emploi, du travail et des solidarités”, (‟DREETS”). The licence is renewable and can be suspended or withdrawn if the agency breaches its obligations.

Financial guarantee. Agencies must maintain a ‟garantie financière” (C. trav., art. L.7123-19 & seq.; R.7123-20 & seq.). This guarantee, generally provided by a bank or insurance company, secures payment of models’ wages, holiday pay, and social security contributions in case the agency defaults. The amount must at least equal the last two months’ gross salaries paid to models, with a statutory minimum (adjusted annually by decree; historically in the tens of thousands of euros).

Conflict of interest ban. To prevent abuse, agencies are prohibited from combining their activity with that of certain end-users (C. trav., art. L.7123-15). In particular, an agency cannot simultaneously operate as a production company, advertising agency, or other type of employer likely to hire models directly. The goal is to avoid the agency representing models while also being their counterparty in negotiations, which would undermine the agency’s fiduciary role.

Practical effect. In France, a legitimate agency must not only be licenced and insured but also operate with a firewall between its representation function and the hiring clients. This is very different from the U.S., where agencies often double as ‟management companies”, creating the very conflicts of interest that French law explicitly bans.

2.2. United Kingdom

Most models in the United Kingdom (‟UK”) are treated as self-employed for tax and day-to-day purposes, invoicing for their work and paying income tax and National Insurance directly. The key legal framework is the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. These rules normally prohibit agencies from charging fees to workers, but Schedule 3 creates an express exemption for entertainment, sport, and modelling: agencies may legally charge commission to the models they represent (legislation.gov.uk, SI 2003/3319).

In practice, modelling agencies typically take 20 percent commission from the model’s earnings and also charge the client an additional 20 percent “service fee”. For example, on a £1,000 booking, the client may be invoiced £1,200, while the model receives £800 — the agency keeping roughly 36 percent of the total spend. This is far higher than commissions in sports representation (2–5 percent) or film/TV agents (10–15 percent).

Employment status, however, remains fact-sensitive under general UK employment tests. A model engaged full-time by a brand (for example, an in-house fit model at ASOS) may well be classified as an employee. A freelance model booked through an agency for occasional shows could argue she is a ‟worker”, gaining rights to holiday pay and minimum wage, if there is sufficient control and obligation of personal service. But most catwalk and campaign models remain categorised as self-employed contractors.

Finally, representation is often non-exclusive. Models may sign with several agencies across different markets (London, Paris, Milan), though top London agencies sometimes impose exclusive UK representation clauses, particularly when investing in developing new talent.

Conflicts of interest. Unlike the French system, which expressly prohibits agencies from also acting as end-users (e.g. production companies or advertising agencies) to avoid representing models while being their counterparty, the UK regime does not impose such a strict separation. The 2003 Conduct Regulations focus instead on transparency and fairness: agencies must give models written terms of business (Reg. 14), disclose their charges, and keep proper records. There is no equivalent ban on agencies operating in multiple roles. In practice, this means a London modelling agency can both represent models and operate a production or creative arm, provided it is clear about the fees charged and does not mislead the model about the terms of engagement. Any challenge to conflicts of interest is therefore left to general contract law, fiduciary duties, and consumer protection standards, rather than a dedicated statutory firewall.

2.3. United States (NYC & LA)

No single nationwide status. Most adult models are engaged as independent contractors, not employees. For on-camera advertising work, they may be covered by the SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contracts which impose:

P&H contributions (pension and health payments that producers must make on top of fees, funding union health insurance and retirement plans), and

Usage/residual frameworks: payments depend on how long and where the commercial is exploited (TV, cable, internet, foreign, etc.), with residuals owed for re-runs or re-use beyond the initial term.

By contrast, print modelling and runway/catwalk work are not SAG-AFTRA-covered. These jobs rely entirely on private contracts with agencies and clients, with no nationwide collective framework, no P&H contributions, and no residual payments.

New York (2025): Fashion Workers Act. Since June 19, 2025, New York has enforced the Fashion Workers Act, the first U.S. law to seriously regulate model and talent management. It requires written contracts (deal memos before work, final agreements afterwards), payment timelines, and full disclosure of commissions and expenses. Agency commissions are capped at 20 percent, contract terms cannot exceed three years without renewal, and deductions for travel or housing must be pre-agreed in writing. Models working more than 8 hours/day must get overtime and a meal break. Crucially, any use of a model’s digital replica now demands separate, clear consent. Management companies must register with the Department of Labor and comply with insurance and safety obligations, giving models a new private right of action. Compared to the rest of the U.S., where models remain largely freelance with little statutory protection, New York has set a groundbreaking floor of fairness in the industry.

Child models (New York). Since 2013, child models under 18 in New York have been legally classified as child performers under the state’s Labor Law (Arts. 4-A, Part 186). This reform was the direct result of Model Alliance advocacy, led by Sara Ziff with the support of Susan Scafidi and the Council for Fashion Designers in America (‟CFDA”), to correct what they called an ‟anomaly” — that child actors had legal safeguards, while child models did not.

The new regime imported performer protections into modelling:

Work permits: both the child and the hiring employer must obtain Department of Labor permits before the child can work.

Trust accounts (Coogan-style): at least 15 percent of the model’s gross earnings must be deposited into a blocked trust account, accessible only once the model reaches majority.

Working hours: limits on the number of hours per day and week, with further restrictions on night work.

Education: employers must provide a certified tutor when work conflicts with school hours, ensuring children do not fall behind academically.

Chaperones & welfare: a parent or guardian must be present; models must receive meal breaks and safe working conditions.

Significance. For the first time, a 14-year-old walking at New York Fashion Week was treated in law like a 14-year-old on Broadway or a film set: guaranteed rest, oversight, and pay protection. Outside New York, most U.S. states still lack any equivalent framework—no trust accounts, no capped hours, no education safeguards—leaving under-18 models vulnerable to exploitation.

California (LA): Worker classification uses the ABC test (AB5/AB2257). Many models are still contracted as independents, but the risk of misclassification and subsequent requalification as employees exists whenever the hiring entity controls the manner or means of work outside statutory exemptions. In practice, however, California offers no fashion model–specific legal protections: minors may benefit from the general Coogan trust account requirement, but unlike in New York, there is no dedicated regime for child or adult models.

3. Collective frameworks, unions & trade organisations

3.1. France: outdated, murky and administrative collective bargaining framework for fashion models

There is a dedicated sectoral agreement: ‟Convention collective nationale des mannequins adultes et mannequins enfants de moins de 16 ans employés par les agences de mannequins” (IDCC 2397), extended by ministerial order (13 April 2005). It covers models under 16 working via agencies. Key protections still live:

The ‟Mandat civil de représentation” (Annexe IX, Avenant n° 15 of 5 May 2022) is operative: for child models, legal guardians must sign a civil mandate that governs image-rights/exploitation.

There is still a legal requirement that child models receive a minimum percentage (≈ 31 percent) of the sums paid by the client to the agency for advertising/press work.

Classification categories of services (‟défilé, publicité, prise à vue”) still exist in the ‟convention collective”, with requirements for how child model work is separated from adult model categories.

At the same time, many salary floor articles (gross hourly minimums for certain categories), some wage tables for minors in certain tasks and services, and older annexes are now explicitly ‟non en vigueur” or replaced.

In March 2025, after around a year of negotiations, the modelling unions (‟syndicats”) and agencies in France finalised a new collective bargaining agreement under IDCC 2397. The agreement reaffirms many existing provisions (percentage shares, classification of services such as ‟publicité/presse, défilé”, and work for minors), clarifies certain procedures and wage minima, and updates branch-accords for specific agency activities. However, one key demand was rejected: models will not receive ‟intermittents du spectacle” status, a regime some aimed for to secure more flexible worker protections. The new agreement thus tightens and clarifies, but stops short of the transformative change many models had hoped for.

The institutional landscape is equally fragmented. On the trade union side, the SYNAM (Syndicat national des agences de mannequins), created in 2009, was born of the shared will to unite the SAM (Syndicat des agences de mannequins, created in 1972) and the UNAM (Union nationale des agences de mannequins, created in 1992). It represents model agencies and acts as a key interlocutor in collective bargaining.

On the employers’ association side, the Fédération française des agences de mannequins (FFAM) groups together many leading agencies and maintains a public directory (mannequinat.fr). A full list of French unions and federations active in the sector is available here: mannequinat.fr/liste/syndicat.

The end result is a fragmented and often opaque framework: complex to navigate, burdened with layers of protective and administrative requirements, and in several respects outdated. It illustrates once again how French labour regulations tend to prioritise formalism and bureaucracy over clarity and practical effectiveness.

3.2. The UK: none, aside from Equity’s fragile structure and Models’ network

There is no model-specific collective bargaining agreement (‟CBA”) in the UK — a CBA being a binding agreement negotiated between trade unions and employers (or employer associations) that sets sector-wide pay scales, conditions, and rights.

Instead, representation comes through Equity, the performers’ union, which explicitly organises fashion models and runs a dedicated Models’ network. This provides a forum for collective voice, template contracts, campaigns (such as those around London Fashion Week), and dispute support. It is not automatic coverage like a French sectoral CBA, but it does amount to a form of institutional representation for models in the UK.

On the industry side, the British Fashion Model Agents Association (‟BFMAA”) represents leading UK model agencies. It is a trade association, not a union: its mission is to maintain professional standards among agencies, to liaise with government and regulators, and to provide a channel for agencies to coordinate policy and training. While BFMAA membership signals a degree of compliance with best practice, its role is to protect agency interests rather than those of models themselves.

Compared to the dense French legal and collective bargaining framework, the UK system therefore looks far less regulated — a more flexible, ‟light-touch” approach that leaves greater room for market practice but also exposes models to weaker formal protections.

3.3. The US: a desert for fashion models’ collective bargaining power!

There is no national CBA for fashion models.

SAG-AFTRA, the performers’ union, covers on-camera and commercial work (with residuals and pension & health contributions), but print and runway modelling fall outside its jurisdiction, so coverage depends entirely on the type of job.

The Model Alliance, founded by Sara Ziff in 2012, plays an important advocacy and policy role — it has secured legislative reforms like New York’s 2013 Child Model Law and was instrumental in pushing through the 2025 Fashion Workers Act — but it is not a trade union and does not negotiate CBAs on behalf of models.

In practice, most U.S. models remain independent contractors with little collective bargaining power, relying instead on statutory reforms and advocacy initiatives. By contrast, New York’s Fashion Workers Act now imposes written contracts, payment timelines, disclosure rules, and protections against digital replica use — regulatory teeth that substitute for the absence of union-negotiated standards.

Yet the risk – even in the state of New York – remains real: models often become heavily indebted to their own agencies through inflated expenses and opaque deductions, and that basic business model has not fundamentally changed since 2012, despite the advances brought by Model Alliance and recent New York legislation.

4. Tax snapshots (what actually lands in pocket?)

This varies with status, residency, treaties, and deductions. Think of these as templates, not quotes.

4.1. France (employee ‟mannequin” via agency)

Employee social contributions. In France, when a model is treated as an employee (the default situation), the agency (as employer of record) withholds employee social security contributions directly from the gross wage. These cover health, pension, unemployment, and other charges. The effect is that a model typically receives only about 75–80 percent of the gross wage as net salary before income tax. In other words, if a client pays €1,000 gross for a day of work, the model will see something closer to €750–800 on her payslip (before any income tax is later deducted). The exact percentage varies depending on the contribution scheme and the nature of the contract.

Royalties and post-shoot exploitation. In France, when a model works a job, they earn two distinct types of remuneration:

Salary for the performance itself — for example, the day rate for walking in a runway show or posing in a photoshoot. This is always treated as salary under French labour law, with full payroll deductions (as explained above).

Remuneration for the subsequent exploitation of their image — for example, if photographs taken during a shoot are later used in an advertising campaign, on billboards, or in a TV spot. This is what is meant by “post-shoot exploitation.”

Article L.7123-6 of the Code du travail explicitly provides that such remuneration is not considered ‟salary” but a separate stream, calculated either as a percentage of revenue or a lump sum. It is treated more like a royalty than a wage.

Because this income is not salary, it is generally classified for tax and social security purposes as ‟revenus non-salariés” — in practice, often under the category of ‟bénéfices non commerciaux” (‟BNC”). That means it does not go through the payroll system, but instead is subject to CSG/CRDS and other prélèvements sociaux on non-wage income, at rates different from those applied to wages.

Example:

If the same images are later licenced to appear on a national billboard campaign, the model may receive an additional €5,000 under art. L.7123-6 code du travail. That €5,000 is not salary — it is a royalty-like payment. Instead of payroll withholding, it is subject to CSG/CRDS and other social charges on BNC income.

A model is paid €1,000 as their day rate for a photoshoot. That €1,000 is a salary: it goes through payroll, with social charges withheld, and they net ~€750–800 before income tax.

For non-resident EU/EEA models temporarily working in France, the presumption of employment can in theory be set aside if they provide an A1 certificate proving they remain covered by their home country’s social security system. In practice, however, most agencies and clients apply the French rules by default, so even foreign models see French payroll and social charges withheld — leading many to complain they contribute heavily to URSSAF without ever benefiting from French welfare rights.

4.2. United Kingdom (self-employed typical)

Most working models in the UK are treated as self-employed individuals, so their modelling income is classified as trading profits (not dividends, unless routed through a personal company). Very high-earning models, the likes of Naomi Campbell, sometimes use loan-out companies to channel worldwide income through a UK corporate vehicle; in that case, the company pays corporation tax, and the model draws salary or dividends, a structure commonly used in entertainment professions.

For the 2025/26 tax year, income tax rates remain at 20 percent (basic rate) for income up to £50,270, 40 percent (higher rate) for income between £50,271 and £125,140, and 45 percent (additional rate) for income above £125,140. The personal allowance is the slice of income on which no tax is paid — currently £12,570. Under the government’s ‟frozen allowance” policy, this threshold has been held constant for several years instead of rising with inflation, which increases the effective tax burden over time.

National Insurance contributions (NICs) apply separately to profits. Class 4 NICs are charged at 6 percent on profits between £12,570 and £50,270 and 2 percent on profits above £50,270. (Class 2 contributions — a flat weekly charge — were abolished from April 2024, though models can still make them voluntarily to protect state pension entitlement.)

Example. Suppose a model has taxable profits of £100,000 from UK bookings in 2025/26. After applying the £12,570 personal allowance, £37,700 is taxed at 20 percent (£7,540), the next £74,870 is taxed at 40 percent (£29,948), and the remaining £0 is taxed at 45 percent (since income is below £125,140 additional rate threshold). In NICs, they pay 6 percent on £37,700 (£2,262) and 2 percent on £49,730 (£994.60), total NIC ≈ £3,257.

A major advantage of the UK system is the ability to deduct business expenses before calculating taxable profit. Models can deduct expenses such as travel to assignments, accommodation while on jobs, portfolio costs, agency commissions, and work-related clothing or makeup, provided these are “wholly and exclusively” for the trade. By contrast, in France models are treated as employees: their wages are taxed as employment income, and employees cannot deduct professional expenses beyond a flat allowance (the 10 percent ‟abattement”), unless they opt for a very restricted actual-expenses regime. This makes the UK framework more flexible and often more tax-efficient for models.

4.3. United States (independent contractor baseline)

Most working models in the U.S. are treated as independent contractors and paid on a Form 1099 basis, so their income is classed as self-employment income. A smaller number of very successful models use loan-out companies (typically single-member LLCs or S-corps) to channel their earnings, in which case the company receives the gross income and pays corporation tax or passes through the profits, with the model drawing salary and/or dividends. The choice between working as a freelancer or through a loan-out company affects how income is characterised (personal earnings vs. business profits/dividends) and the tax planning opportunities available.

At the federal level, income tax is progressive and administered by the IRS. For the 2025 tax year, rates range from 10 percent to 37 percent depending on taxable income. In addition, self-employed models pay self-employment tax of 15.3 percent: this consists of 12.4 percent Social Security contributions (capped at USD168,600 of income in 2025) and 2.9 percent Medicare contributions, plus an additional 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on earnings above USD200,000 (USD250,000 for joint filers). On top of this, state and sometimes city income taxes apply, which can bring the total effective burden close to UK or French levels in high-tax jurisdictions such as New York City or Los Angeles.

A key feature of the U.S. regime, however, is that models working as independent contractors can deduct business expenses before calculating taxable profit. Travel to assignments, accommodation on location, agency commissions, portfolio and marketing costs, and other “ordinary and necessary” expenses are deductible, provided they are incurred exclusively for the trade. This flexibility can substantially reduce taxable income, and stands in marked contrast to France, where models are treated as employees and deductions are limited to a flat 10 percent allowance (unless they opt into the burdensome ‟frais réels” regime).

On top of federal obligations, models must also contend with state and sometimes city income taxes. In New York State, rates range from about 4 percent to 10.9 percent, while New York City adds a further 3–4 percent personal income tax, making New York one of the costliest jurisdictions for self-employed workers. In California, state income tax runs from 1 percent to 12.3 percent, with an additional 1 percent ‟Mental Health Services Tax” on income above USD1 million. For models based in Los Angeles, this combination produces some of the highest overall effective rates in the country, though without the extra city layer of New York.

Illustration. A model earning USD200,000 in self-employment income from campaigns would typically face the following: roughly USD37,000 in federal income tax (after applying deductions), about USD23,000 in self-employment tax (covering Social Security and Medicare), plus USD15,000 in New York State income tax and around USD7,000 in New York City tax. Their net take-home would be close to USD118,000 — about 59 percent of gross income. By contrast, in California the same USD200,000 income would generate around USD15,000 in state tax but no city levy, leaving a slightly higher net take-home than in New York City.

5. Image rights: France vs UK vs US

5.1. France — ‟droit à l’image” and the ‟photographie retouchée” label

French law treats the image of a person as part of their fundamental rights. Article 9 of the Code civil, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‟ECHR”) all protect the right to private life — and French courts have consistently extended this to cover the ‟droit à l’image”. For models, this means they hold an exclusive right to control the fixation, reproduction, and use of their image. Simply agreeing to pose for a photographer is not enough: courts have ruled (TGI Paris, 7 Dec. 1994; CA Paris, 12 Sept. 1995) that publication without a specific, prior authorisation is an infringement.

Consent is therefore essential. In practice, it is obtained through the model’s employment contract or a ‟contrat de mise à disposition” between the agency and the end-user. Article R.7123-1 of the Code du travail requires that these contracts contain a clause setting out the conditions under which the model authorises and is remunerated for the exploitation or reproduction of the recording of their presentation. Such authorisations must be express, limited in scope (media, duration, territory), and fairly remunerated — general cessions ‟for all media, for all time, for a token fee” are invalid (CA Paris, 30 Apr. 1998; CA Versailles, 7 May 1998). There is, in other words, no such thing as ‟royalty-free” model photographs under French law.

French case law illustrates the strength of these protections. In Morales et autres c/ Mov’in (TGI Bobigny, 16 Sept. 2003), the court held that models retain their image rights even as professionals, and that unauthorised use deprives them of their livelihood, causing compensable loss. In Gubry c/ Société de conception de presse (TGI Nanterre, 2 Mar. 2004), the court found that portraying a luxury model as a strip-tease performer devalued her professional image and caused patrimonial damage. French judges thus recognise both the moral and the commercial dimension of image rights.

In parallel, legislation has introduced a ‟truth in retouching” rule. Since Law no. 2016-41 of 26 January 2016 (loi de modernisation de notre système de santé), Article L.2133-2 of the Code de la santé publique requires that any commercial photograph of a model whose body shape has been digitally altered must carry the label ‟Photographie retouchée”. Violations are punishable by fines up to €37,500 or 30 percent of the advertising spend. Yet, in practice, the measure is seldom enforced: magazines, websites, and advertisers routinely ignore the requirement, illustrating the gap between France’s dense arsenal of protective laws and the laxity of enforcement.

The French regime therefore offers models a theoretically robust framework: image rights grounded in civil and human rights law, contractual mechanisms in the Code du travail, and statutory labelling obligations. But in practice, the system’s complexity, administrative burden, and inconsistent enforcement often leave models in a weaker position than the letter of the law would suggest.

5.2. United Kingdom — no standalone ‟image right”

Unlike France or the US, the UK does not recognise a freestanding image right. Protection for models’ likenesses must instead be pieced together through other doctrines — primarily privacy law, data protection, and the tort of passing off in cases of false endorsement.

Two leading strands of case law show how fragile and costly this protection can be. First, in Naomi Campbell v MGN Ltd, the House of Lords upheld Campbell’s claim to privacy when the Daily Mirror published photographs of her leaving Narcotics Anonymous, ruling that although celebrities can be reported on, publishing details of medical treatment was disproportionate and breached her Article 8 ECHR rights. This established that models can invoke privacy and data protection rights against intrusive press coverage — but only after expensive and protracted litigation.

Second, in Rihanna v Topshop, the court of appeal confirmed that selling a t-shirt bearing Rihanna’s image without her consent amounted to passing off, because it created a false impression of endorsement. Crucially, the decision did not recognise an autonomous image right: Rihanna succeeded only because her lawyers proved misrepresentation leading to damage to goodwill. For professional models, this illustrates the evidentiary burden: they must show not just use of their likeness, but that the use causes consumer confusion and damages their commercial reputation.

In practice, this means models in the UK must be exceptionally vigilant. They need switched-on lawyers from the outset to scrutinise the contracts they sign with agencies and end-clients, ensuring that any recording, reproduction, or commercial use of their likeness is expressly licenced and remunerated. And if disputes arise, enforcing these rights — whether against brands like Topshop or tabloids like MGN — demands costly litigation. The result is a system where only the best-advised, most financially resilient models can realistically safeguard their interests.

5.3. United States — Right of Publicity (state law)

In the U.S., there is no federal ‟image right”. Protection comes from the right of publicity, which exists only at state level. Here, California — and by extension Los Angeles, the hub of the fashion and entertainment industries — has long been at the forefront. California Civil code §§ 3344 and 3344.1 protect against the unauthorised commercial use of a person’s name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, both during life and post-mortem. For models, this means that any commercial exploitation of their image without written consent can give rise to damages.

New York, by contrast, historically lagged. Until very recently, its Civil rights law §§ 50 and 51 gave only a narrow privacy-based remedy. In 2021, however, New York finally enacted § 50-f, a statutory right of publicity including post-mortem rights and explicit protection against unauthorised ‟digital replicas” — a belated recognition of publicity rights, but one that came decades after California. The state’s courts had long forced celebrities and models to fight claims under privacy law rather than a proper publicity right, leaving gaps in protection.

Beyond California and New York, at least half the states now recognise some form of publicity right, either by statute or common law. Among the more notable are Indiana, Tennessee, Washington, Nevada, Illinois, Texas, Virginia, Florida, and Massachusetts. Each varies in scope: some protect post-mortem rights for decades (e.g. Indiana, Tennessee), while others offer only limited protection during life. A handful of states, including Maine, still have no recognised right of publicity at all.

Case law illustrates how these rights can be enforced. In White v Samsung Electronics (971 F.2d 1395, 9th Cir. 1992), Vanna White succeeded against Samsung for running an ad using a robot in her likeness without consent, under California’s § 3344. In Motschenbacher v R.J. Reynolds Tobacco (498 F.2d 821, 9th Cir. 1974), a racing driver was found to have a claim where his distinctive car and image were used in an advertisement. More recently, models have invoked § 3344 against online platforms and brands using their photos without consent, although many of these disputes settle confidentially.

For models, the practical upshot is that contracts are everything. Publicity rights exist, but their scope and enforcement vary wildly across states. Written consent — specifying territory, duration, media, and scope of use — is essential, and must be tightly drafted. This is why U.S. models need highly competent lawyers and switched-on agents to negotiate licences and guard against overbroad releases. Without them, they risk signing away their likeness for little compensation, or facing expensive litigation to claw it back.

In this sense, the U.S. is as cut-throat as the UK: only models with financial resilience, robust legal teams, and aggressive representation can fully enforce their image rights. The difference is that California has built a powerful statutory arsenal, while New York and other jurisdictions are still playing catch-up.

6. Contracts (where models win or bleed)

6.1. Agency agreements

6.1.1. France — modelling contracts are employment agreements

In France, the modelling agency is usually treated as the model’s legal employer for jobs that the agency sources. This means that the agency, not the brand or end-user, issues the employment contract, pays the model’s salary, and withholds and remits social security contributions to URSSAF. The relationship between model and agency is therefore structured as an employment agreement, even if the model is dispatched to a third-party client through a ‟contrat de mise à disposition”.

Remuneration is subject to strict rules under the Convention collective nationale des mannequins (IDCC 2397). Pay cannot simply be whatever the agency negotiates: it must equal at least a statutory minimum percentage of the total amount paid by the client to the agency. The percentages vary by type of job (press, advertising, runway). Agencies may advance funds to cover career-related expenses (such as comp cards, test shoots, or travel), but the convention caps how much of the model’s future pay can be withheld to recoup these advances, preventing agencies from trapping models in indefinite debt.

In addition, French law requires that a paid-leave indemnity be added to each job. This is a substitute for accrued paid holidays, since models are typically hired on short fixed-term contracts (‟contrats à durée déterminée d’usage”). As a result, every assignment must carry this statutory supplement, further underlining the employment nature of the relationship.

6.1.2. United Kingdom — modelling agency agreements

In the UK, relationships between models and agencies are regulated by the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. These rules require agencies to deal transparently with their models: contracts must be in writing, records must be kept of all bookings, and the terms of fees and commissions must be clear.

Under Schedule 3 of the Regulations, agencies are permitted to charge commission to models on work they arrange, provided the terms are set out explicitly in the agency agreement. Commission typically ranges from 20 percent to 35 percent of the model’s earnings from a booking. What models must watch carefully are the contract clauses dealing with exclusivity (whether they may work with other agencies), and with so-called ‟long tail” provisions, which allow agencies to keep charging commission even after a model has left the agency if the client relationship originated while she was represented there.

Another key point is consent around re-use of images. UK law does not grant models an automatic ‟image right”, so agency contracts often include licence clauses authorising the client to reuse images across media or campaigns. Unless negotiated carefully, these licences may be broad, long in duration, or granted without additional pay. A switched-on lawyer reviewing the agency agreement can limit such clauses — for example, ensuring re-use is separately licenced and remunerated.

The practical result is that while the Conduct Regulations set minimum standards of clarity and fairness, the substance of protection depends heavily on the drafting of the agency agreement itself. Models in the UK therefore rely less on statutory rights than on careful negotiation of their contracts to safeguard their earnings and control over their image.

6.1.3. US mother agency system

The U.S. modelling market is dominated by the so-called mother agency system. A ‟mother agency” is the first agency to discover or sign a model. It manages their early career, develops their portfolio, and — crucially — holds contractual rights to place their with other agencies abroad (Paris, London, Tokyo) or in different U.S. markets (New York, Los Angeles, Miami). When a model works under another agency’s booking, the mother agency typically receives a share of the commission, often for years after the initial placement. This creates a powerful and enduring contractual bond, sometimes criticised as creating ‟long tail” obligations that keep models tied to their first agency long after moving on.

For on-camera advertising work, contracts may fall under SAG-AFTRA collective agreements (notably the Commercials Contracts). These agreements override or supplement private agency contracts by imposing union-mandated terms: minimum session fees, structured usage payments (depending on media and duration), holding fees if the advertiser reserves exclusivity, pension and health contributions, and, most recently, clauses dealing with the use of AI and digital replicas. SAG-AFTRA coverage is a significant advantage: it replaces opaque agency clauses with enforceable union standards and gives models access to union dispute resolution.

By contrast, print modelling and editorial work are not covered by SAG-AFTRA. Here, everything depends on the agency contract and the client licence. Contracts often include clauses granting the client a licence to use the model’s image for specific media, duration, and territory. Without careful drafting, these clauses can be open-ended, allowing brands to reuse campaign photos in perpetuity or across new platforms without further payment. Well-advised models negotiate separate fees for re-use, but younger or inexperienced models may sign away broad rights for a flat fee.

In practice, therefore, U.S. models must navigate a patchwork: SAG-AFTRA protection for on-camera commercial work, but a purely contractual regime for print and runway. The mother agency system, with its enduring commissions, adds another layer of complexity. All of this underscores the importance of smart legal and agent representation: without it, models risk being locked into long-term commission obligations or losing control over the commercial exploitation of their image.

6.2. Client agreements — contracts with brands and marketing agencies

When a model is booked by a brand or its advertising agency, the resulting contract is the critical document that governs how their image will be used and how they will be paid. The most important clauses concern the scope of the licence granted over the model’s likeness. A well-drafted contract must specify the media (print, digital, outdoor, broadcast), the territories (national, regional, global), and the term (three months, one year, two years). Without these limits, brands often push for broad ‟any media, in perpetuity, throughout the universe” licences. Industry practice is that such sweeping rights should either be rejected or command serious fee multipliers; otherwise the model risks signing away their image for negligible compensation.

Exclusivity and conflict clauses also matter. A client may require the model not to work for competitors during or after a campaign. Such restrictions can be legitimate, but they must be narrowly drawn: the brand, the product category, and the duration of exclusivity should be crystal clear, and the fee should reflect the loss of other work.

New issues are now appearing in contracts, especially around AI and synthetic use. Brands increasingly ask for rights to create or train digital avatars based on a model’s likeness. These clauses should be reviewed with extreme care: in the U.S., SAG-AFTRA’s recent agreements already require explicit consent and separate payment for AI replicas, while in Europe models rely on general ‟droit à l’image” principles.

Models must also watch for moral-turpitude clauses, which allow clients to terminate the contract if the model is involved in scandal, and for clauses governing nudity, sexualised imagery, or retouching. In France, Code de la santé publique Article L.2133-2 requires that digitally retouched images carry the label “photographie retouchée”, though enforcement is patchy. Contracts sometimes transfer liability for compliance onto the agency or even the model herself, a risk that must be resisted.

Other protections are equally vital. Health and safety obligations during shoots and shows should be spelled out, including insurance cover for accidents. Payment deadlines must also be fixed: New York’s 2025 Fashion Workers Act now legally requires agencies and clients to pay models within set timeframes, with penalties for delay, whereas in other jurisdictions late payment remains a chronic problem.

In short, client agreements are where models most directly monetise their image. A narrow, precise licence with adequate fees for each use is the gold standard; broad, open-ended grants with no extra compensation are red flags. Only careful negotiation — ideally with strong legal and agency support — ensures that the commercial exploitation of a model’s likeness is proportionate, safe, and fairly remunerated.

7. AI is here—does it upend modelling?

The threat posed by artificial intelligence to the modelling profession is no longer speculative. In August 2025, creative agency Andreea Petrescu Studio unveiled Seraphinne Vallora, an entirely AI-generated figure who fronted a global Guess campaign — complete with press interviews and social media presence. This experiment demonstrates that brands are now willing to replace human models with synthetic doubles for advertising and editorial work. The long-term consequence could be that real models are retained only for the live catwalk, while print, outdoor, and digital campaigns migrate towards commoditised AI avatars. One legal question looming is whether states will, as France already does for retouching, require mandatory disclosure that an image depicts an AI-generated model.

Lawmakers are scrambling to catch up. In Europe, the recently adopted EU AI Act imposes transparency obligations for synthetic content and deepfakes, requiring disclosure when a human likeness is artificially generated or manipulated. This dovetails with France’s existing “photographie retouchée” labelling law, though enforcement of the latter has been notoriously lax. In the UK, there is no dedicated AI image law yet; protection comes indirectly, via data protection, passing-off, and consumer protection doctrines. UK regulators have, however, signalled that ‟materially manipulated” images may require disclosure under advertising standards. In September 2025, BFMAA and London-based modelling agency The Milk Collective released a petition with over 2,000 signatories calling for the UK government to protect models from having their likeness used by AI.

The United States is moving faster at state level. Tennessee’s ELVIS Act (2024) created explicit civil and criminal protections against unauthorised cloning of voice and likeness, and New York’s Civil Rights Law §50-f now includes a right of publicity covering ‟digital replicas”. California’s Civil Code §§ 3344/3344.1 are also being read to cover AI-based likenesses. At the industry level, the 2025 SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract incorporated an AI framework requiring express consent and additional compensation for digital replicas or synthetic performers. Even non-union advertisers are now under pressure to adopt equivalent clauses, effectively setting an industry floor.

For models, the practical lesson is stark. Contracts must expressly prohibit training AI systems on their likeness and must separate out consent and compensation for any synthetic reproduction. Absent such protections, models risk seeing their digital doubles licenced endlessly with no control or revenue stream. And the risk is not only commercial: deepfakes also threaten reputational and privacy harm, especially for younger or less established models.

The commoditisation of modelling work through AI is happening in real time. The legal frameworks in France, Europe, the UK, and the U.S. are beginning to provide tools against unauthorised replicas, but enforcement is inconsistent and costly. As with image rights more broadly, only those models with strong legal advice and financial resilience are likely to enforce these new rules in practice.