Legal Regulation of Minors’ Participation in Media Content Creation: Systemic Gaps in Russian Law and Ways to Overcome Them

The study identifies systemic gaps in Russian legal regulation governing participation of minors in the creation of monetized digital content, particularly in the format of family blogs. Although blogging is recognized as an economic activity (OKVED 73.11.1, 70.21.1), no specific legal provisions ensure the protection of children’s rights in this sphere. The analysis highlights key risks, including violations of privacy through the dissemination of personal information; the absence of labor protections, such as limitations on filming time and guarantees of access to rest and education; and deprivation of the minor of his/her right to dispose of his/her earnings (Article 26 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

A comparative legal analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of foreign regulatory mechanisms, including California’s Coogan Laws, the State of Illinois’ SB 1782, amendments to the French Labor Code, and China’s classification of harmful content. These models provide financial safeguards and oversight of working conditions for minors involved in media content production.

To address the identified deficiencies, the author proposes a comprehensive set of measures: statutory recognition of a minor’s informed consent to participation in the creation and publication of content, taking into account the age and providing for revocation; mandatory allocation of 30–50 percent of income derived from the use of the child’s image and participation to a protected account until the age of majority; an explicit prohibition of content harmful to a child’s development or reputation; and regulation of participation time with guarantees of rest and education. The necessity of adopting a federal law or introducing amendments to existing legislation (the Labor Code, the Family Code, the Federal Law «On Information», the Federal Law «On Personal Data», and the Federal Law «On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to their Health and Development») is substantiated in light of the State’s duty to protect children from abuse by parents or persons acting in the place of a parent (Articles 56 and 65 of the Family Code), notwithstanding arguments invoking non-interference in family life.

1. Grishchenko G. A. Podkhody k pravovomu regulirovaniyu blogosfery v rossiyskom zakonodatelstve // Vestnik Universiteta imeni O.Е. Kutafina (MGYuA). — 2022. — № 4 (92). — S. 127–135.

2. Savenko N. E. Pravovoe regulirovanie deyatelnosti blogerov // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2024. — T. 28. — № 6. — S. 92–99.

3. Morehouse L. The Kids Are Not Alright: A Look into the Absence of Laws Protecting Children in Social Media // 44 Loy. L. A. Ent. L. Rev. — 2024. — No. 74.