Permission to publish in the era of AI

Five years ago, it was the occasional email. A handful of parents starting to ask bigger, harder questions of the organisations their children spend time with. Now that same question lands in my inbox almost every day.

It comes from thoughtful parents wondering about consent forms — the "permission to publish" forms that decide where images of their children end up online. Dance, martial arts, the local footy club or school — it doesn't matter. The worry is the same. And lately, more and more often, the email comes from a parent who is genuinely upset. They've been told, gently or otherwise, that if they don't sign, their child will miss out. Without finger pointing, a gentle reminder, that isn't consent in is more like coercion. Under Australian privacy law, real consent has to be four things, and if even one is missing, it's just a signature on a page and your organisation maybe acting unlawfully.

It has to be freely given — the parent can say no, and their child is still included and belongs. Specific — a newsletter/paper and a public Facebook page are not the same thing, and yes to one is not yes to the other. Informed — the parent understands who will see the image, how it might be used, the risks, and how to ask to take it down at anytime. And revocable — a parent can change their mind at any time, and their child carries on exactly as before.

None of this is new. The OAIC (Office of the Australia INformation Commissioner) has said for years that consent isn't real if a person has "no real choice."

What's new is the pressure now being put on families to override it and I don't believe it comes from a bad place. It usually comes from a communications habit built up over ten or fifteen years. Facebook and Instagram are cheap and easy, parents loved the photos, and nobody mentioned that the risk profile had changed. Well, now the Australia regulator has.

On 26 July, the eSafety Commissioner released an advisory, Sharing school imagery in the age of AI, and the numbers in it deserve a quiet, serious read. Between January and March 2026 alone, eSafety received more than 100 reports of anonymous accounts targeting schools and staff — almost all using imagery harvested from school social media and websites. Reports from under-18s about digitally altered intimate images doubled in a year. And the Commissioner confirmed some cases involved AI-generated child sexual exploitation material originating from school settings.

As Professor Michael Salter put it, "there is no risk-free way to share images and videos of kids online — particularly kids in school uniform."

If you have followed me for a while you will know I've been saying something similar since 2014, and I take no pleasure in the evidence catching up.

A public photo of a child is no longer just a photo. It's an AI input. It can be scraped, reverse-searched, face-swapped, or stitched together with a uniform, a first name in the caption, and a location in less than 10mins. Less images is safer, there are ways to do this better and no, an emoji over the faces won't work.

Below is a small sample of the questions built into Ctrl+Shft+Compliance the we designed to quietly take the heavy lifting off your plate.

If your organisationo can't answer all of them yet, notice the pause. That pause isn't a failing, and it certainly isn't a crisis. It's simply the moment showing you where the work still lives in the gap between where you are and where a good system would carry you. Most schools find they can't answer everything at first and they don't know what they don't know. That's the point of Ctrl+Shft. It's exactly the ground this tool was made to cover for you. 1. What's the lawful basis for publishing children's images publicly? 2. What's the takedown policy for what's already up? 3. What risk assessment covers AI misuse? 4. What channel lets non-consenting families stay fully included and still receive photos privately? 5. And who is accountable for image governance?

A childhood should never become a marketing tool for a business, a brand, school or anyone. Because whatever we put their images on now follows them for the rest of their lives. It is not the same as a newspaper clipping kept in a shoebox.

Children get one childhood. One. It isn't content, and it isn't data. It belongs to them.

So let's put them back where they belong inside a safe school, sport or dance community, held by the people who know their names and love them. Not paraded in front of strangers who were never looking out for them in the first place — and yes, that includes the big-tech training sets quietly learning from their faces. There are multiple ways we can still share connection through images of joy and sharing of what is happening whilst keeping children safe. We have worked with a number of schools that have successfully managed the changes. To discuss how we can help please hit reply to this email or contact us here