is a scanned signature the same as an original.

the rule that makes a scan valid

The federal E-SIGN Act provides that "a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form" and that a contract "may not be denied legal effect ... solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation". 15 U.S.C. § 7001(a) — law.cornell.edu, read October 20, 2026.

Every state has adopted a version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act with the same rule: "A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form." N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 294-E:7 — gc.nh.gov, read October 20, 2026.

What counts as signing is broader than ink in every version. An electronic signature is "an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record". N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 294-E:2, VIII — gc.nh.gov, read October 20, 2026. The Uniform Commercial Code defines "signed" the same way: "using any symbol executed or adopted with present intention to adopt or accept a writing". UCC § 1-201(b)(37) — law.cornell.edu, read October 20, 2026.

The intent to sign is the legal act. The scan is just how that intent was recorded.

an original is not required, and a copy is evidence all the same

Where a law asks for a record to be kept or presented "in its original form", UETA answers that too: the requirement "is satisfied by an electronic record" kept in the manner the section sets out. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 294-E:12, IV — gc.nh.gov, read October 20, 2026.

The evidence rules agree. A reproduction made "by any photographic ... or other process which accurately reproduces" the original "is as admissible in evidence as the original itself in any judicial or administrative proceeding whether the original is in existence or not". 28 U.S.C. § 1732 — law.cornell.edu, read October 20, 2026. Most states have adopted this as their own Photographic Copies Act; Minnesota's is a word-for-word match. Minn. Stat. § 600.135 — revisor.mn.gov, read October 20, 2026.

Federal evidence rules go further and call an electronic printout the original: for electronically stored information, "'original' means any printout — or other output readable by sight — if it accurately reflects the information." Fed. R. Evid. 1001(d) — law.cornell.edu, read October 20, 2026.

And a duplicate — "a counterpart produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process ... that accurately reproduces the original" — "is admissible to the same extent as the original" unless a genuine question is raised about the original's authenticity. Fed. R. Evid. 1001(e), 1003 — law.cornell.edu, read October 20, 2026.

the 1 thing a scan cannot prove

The evidence rules build in the exception that matters: the duplicate rule stops applying when "a genuine question is raised about the original's authenticity". Fed. R. Evid. 1003 — law.cornell.edu, read October 20, 2026.

A scan of a signed page proves nothing about what happened above the signature line. It does not show whether a page was swapped after signing, whether the text changed between the version shown and the version scanned, or who applied the signature. A wet original has the same weaknesses; it is only harder to copy.

This is what a signing record replaces. A service that keeps the exact file, a hash of it, and a log of who signed and when answers "is this the document they signed" more directly than the paper original ever could.

where paper is still required

The E-SIGN Act does not apply to "the creation and execution of wills, codicils, or testamentary trusts", to state "adoption, divorce, or other matters of family law", and to most of the Uniform Commercial Code; it also does not cover "court orders or notices, or official court documents". 15 U.S.C. § 7003 — law.cornell.edu, read October 20, 2026.

State law carves out the same ground: the UETA text does not apply to a transaction governed by "[a] law governing the creation and execution of wills, codicils, or testamentary trusts" or by the Uniform Commercial Code outside its listed articles. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 294-E:3, II — gc.nh.gov, read October 20, 2026. Ohio's version states the wills exclusion in the same words. Ohio Rev. Code § 1306.02(B)(1) — codes.ohio.gov, read October 20, 2026.

A will is therefore the clearest case where a scan is not the same as an original: no electronic form covers it, and the witnessing formalities are the point.

Notarisation is not the obstacle it used to be: a notarisation requirement "is satisfied if the electronic signature of the person authorized to perform those acts ... is attached to or logically associated with the signature or record". N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 294-E:11 — gc.nh.gov, read October 20, 2026. Whether a state offers electronic notarisation is its own question, and it varies.

the consent rule on the receiving end

For records a business must provide to a consumer, E-SIGN attaches a condition before electronic delivery works at all: the consumer must have "affirmatively consented to such use and has not withdrawn such consent". 15 U.S.C. § 7001(c)(1) — law.cornell.edu, read October 20, 2026.

That runs in the signer's favour. A company cannot simply decide that your signature now happens by email; for consumer-facing records it has to ask, and you can decline and require paper. The flip side is that you cannot be refused an electronic copy of something you agreed to receive electronically.