It probably helps to create a positive impression, assuming you're photogenic; photos are kind of biased against the unphotogenic. LinkedIn, for instance, is al

It probably helps to create a positive impression, assuming you're photogenic; photos are kind of biased against the unphotogenic. LinkedIn, for instance, is always haranguing new users to put a photo in their profiles. Presumably, this is because profiles with photos are clicked on a lot more often -- especially if the photos look good. It's just one of those human-nature hacks. Photos are also problematic, in so far as they allow the person screening the resumes to make hiring decisions -- even subconscious decisions -- on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, apparent age, or even just physical appearance. I imagine that requiring photos of all candidates would be illegal, or at least highly actionable, in the US. That being said, I don't think there are any rules against putting a photo in one's resume here. I'd just do it with extreme caution. I only see significant upside if you are a great looking person, or have a photo that just screams "Now THAT is a kick-ass professional!" Otherwise, there is just too much risk involved. Risk that you'll be weeded out for "fit" (read: "This person doesn't look like the kind of person who works here"), or for having a weird photo, or even for being the kind of person weird enough to include a photo (since again, photos are not the norm in the US). I will say this much: as unorthodox as these visual resumes are, I kind of like them. They stand out, and they present the vital information in a much more digestible format than ye olde paper resume does. I just think the photo aspect is tricky. I'd also wonder whether real-life HR managers, recruiters, and hiring managers would grok this style, or whether they'd find it too eccentric. Recruiters are usually working within a mold, not trying to break one.