Review what you are allowed to disclose before drafting a client case study. Identify the specific text, images, names and claims proposed for publication, and seek the appropriate permission where needed. Keep approval records and publish only the reviewed material; removing a logo alone does not resolve every disclosure question.
Inventory the material before writing
Collect the items you would like to use: project description, organization name, screenshots, quotations, performance figures and examples of your work. For each, record its source and who can decide whether it may be published. A client contact may approve a description but lack authority over a partner’s image or a research participant’s quotation. Do not assume permission for the final deliverable automatically covers every element shown inside it or every future use of it.
Review the agreement and any relevant confidentiality or publication conditions rather than relying on a general impression that the client was pleased. When the conditions are unclear, pause the affected material and ask the appropriate person for clarification. Sensitive personal information or regulated material may need specialist review. The editorial process should identify the question and responsible reviewer; it should not invent a blanket legal conclusion about publication rights for a global audience.
Ask about the exact proposed version
Prepare a reviewable draft showing the intended title, wording, images, credits and publication location. Include captions and alternative text because they can disclose information even when the image is carefully edited. State whether the page will be publicly accessible and whether you intend to reuse excerpts elsewhere. A specific request is easier to assess than a broad question about using the organization as a reference. Keep unapproved claims out of promotional summaries while the detailed case remains under review.
Ask reviewers to check factual accuracy as well as permission. Confirm your role, the project period and the scope of any result statement. If the client edits a sentence, check that the revised wording still matches your evidence. Approval to publish does not make an unsupported performance claim true. Likewise, a correct statement may still contain information you cannot disclose. Treat accuracy and publication permission as related but separate checks with their own records.
Publish within the approved boundary
Keep a record of the approved version and any conditions, such as a publication period or required attribution. Check the final page against that version after formatting, including social preview text and downloads you control. New screenshots or stronger claims added during design need their own review when they fall outside the permission already obtained. Avoid treating approval of one case study as standing permission for unrelated posts, advertisements or a reusable client-logo collection.
Provide a practical contact route for a correction or publication concern. Review the case when the relationship, underlying facts or agreed conditions change. If a needed permission is unavailable, consider a clearly independent example that does not recreate confidential material, or choose another project. An anonymized description can still reveal identity through its context. Removing names is an editorial change, not a universal assurance that every remaining disclosure issue has been resolved.
Fictional example: reviewing a project excerpt
A fictional service designer, Ada, wants to publish an invented client-project description containing a team name, a workflow image and a participant quotation. Her permission inventory separates those elements rather than assuming one general approval covers them all. The illustrative reviewer can authorize the workflow description, but the participant quotation is not cleared for public use, so Ada removes it from the draft and preview text.
The approved fictional version uses a simplified diagram reviewed for publication and states Ada’s actual proposed role boundaries. Ada stores the reviewed draft and checks the rendered page against it. This example describes a publication workflow; it is not a real approval record and does not establish that the same steps settle contractual or privacy questions in another engagement.
A checklist for your next step
- Inventory every proposed disclosure.
- Identify the appropriate reviewer.
- Share the exact publication draft.
- Separate accuracy from permission.
- Check previews and later reuse.
Common questions
Does client approval cover participant quotations?
Do not assume it does. Identify the relevant permissions and privacy conditions for the specific quotation and intended publication.
Can I publish if the client does not reply?
An unanswered request does not establish approval. Review existing terms and obtain clarification before publishing material whose status is unresolved.
Further reading
These primary resources provide related background. They do not validate the illustrative example or endorse AliveProfile.
AI-assisted drafting and automated technical checks. Examples are illustrative; no independent expert review or real-world outcome validation is claimed. Read our editorial policy.