The language matters. For years, the practice of sharing intimate images without consent carried the label “revenge porn.” Australian authorities have since moved away from that term, and the reasons go to the heart of what schools now face. Young people share intimate images of peers to embarrass, to bully, to pressure, to threaten, to boast or to get someone into trouble. Revenge sits low on the list of motives. The term now used by regulators is image-based abuse, and the evidence shows it is a documented and growing problem inside Australian school communities.
Roughly one third of reports received by the eSafety Commissioner about intimate images or videos shared without consent involve people under 18. Moreover, the regulator’s own school guidance addresses the scenario directly: students sharing explicit material of other students, with consequences that spill into classrooms, corridors and staff rooms.
The Numbers Behind the Problem
The data gives educators a clear picture of scale. Reports to eSafety about digitally altered intimate images involving under-18s, including deepfakes, more than doubled in the past 18 months compared to the total received in the seven years prior. Four out of five of those reports involved the targeting of young girls.
Sexual extortion adds another layer. Joint research by eSafety and the Australian Institute of Criminology surveyed nearly 2,000 young people aged 16 to 18 and found that more than one in ten had been the victim of sexual extortion. Of those, more than half experienced it before the age of 16. This is happening during the school years, inside the social networks that schools host every day. Yet the problem is commonly overlooked because much of the harm stays hidden until a crisis forces it into view.
AI Has Changed the Threat
Artificial intelligence has removed the last practical barrier. As a result, a real intimate image is no longer required. A yearbook photo, a sports day picture or a staff headshot is now enough. Between January and March 2026, eSafety received more than 100 reports involving anonymous accounts targeting Australian schools and their staff. In almost every case, the imagery came from the school’s own website or social media accounts. Offenders then used it to create AI-generated videos, face swaps, memes and fabricated stories about school leaders.
In July 2026, eSafety warned schools directly that publicly available school photographs were being harvested and manipulated at scale. Significantly, the warning covered staff as well as students. As a consequence, teachers and principals have become targets alongside the young people in their care. One case illustrates the human cost. In May 2024, police identified 21 girls at Bacchus Marsh Grammar in Victoria as victims after AI-generated explicit images, created from students’ social media photos, were allegedly shared in a boys’ group chat. Five boys left the school following the incident. Federal child exploitation laws initially faced difficulties prosecuting the case because of the synthetic nature of AI deepfakes. State police subsequently laid charges against a juvenile perpetrator under Victorian law. That outcome highlighted a critical gap. The harm was real and documented, yet schools were left to manage the immediate aftermath while the legal framework caught up.
The Consequences Reach Into School Life
Image-based abuse rarely stays online. eSafety notes that victims experience bullying and harassment, withdraw from school and social life, and suffer damage to their academic performance and relationships. For educators, this means the signs often appear in the classroom first. A student who stops attending or drops out of a friendship group may be carrying a harm that no one at school has yet seen. A sudden decline in academic performance can point to the same cause.
Furthermore, the earlier data confirms the problem is long-standing. A 2017 eSafety study found that 15 per cent of Australian girls aged 15 to 17 had images shared without their consent. The problem therefore predates AI. Technology has since accelerated it and widened the pool of potential victims to anyone with a face online.
The Legal Landscape Is Shifting
The law is catching up, and educators need to understand where it stands. Sharing intimate material without consent is illegal across Australia. When the person depicted is under 18, Commonwealth child abuse material laws can also apply, even when the young people involved are themselves minors. Under the Criminal Code Act 1995, creating, possessing or distributing sexually explicit images of anyone under 18 is illegal regardless of consent. Maximum penalties range from 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment depending on the specific offence category, whether that is production, access or distribution. Even consensual sexting between adolescents falls within this framework.
States are moving too. In April 2026, the Queensland Government introduced laws to criminalise AI deepfake abuse, making it an offence to create non-consensual intimate images generated or altered using digital technology. The maximum penalty is three years’ imprisonment. Notably, the legislation was developed in consultation with the education sector, a signal that lawmakers now see schools as central to the response.
What Schools Can Do Now
The evidence points to a set of practical steps for school leaders. First, school leaders should audit all public imagery. This means reviewing every student and staff photograph on school websites and social media accounts, then assessing whether each image genuinely needs to be publicly accessible. Second, schools need to build clear reporting pathways. Students require a safe, known route to report image-based abuse without fear of punishment, particularly given the legal complexity around minors and intimate images.
Third, staff training on the early signs is critical. Withdrawal, absenteeism and sudden academic decline are common indicators. Staff who recognise them early can intervene before harm compounds further. Fourth, schools should teach the law accurately. Many students have no idea that creating a deepfake of a classmate can constitute child abuse material under Commonwealth law. Accurate legal education serves as both a deterrent and a protection. Finally, schools should engage eSafety early. The regulator has removal powers and school-specific guidance, and involving it promptly shortens the time harmful material stays online.
The Road Ahead
The trajectory is clear. Deepfake tools are becoming easier to use, reports are rising sharply and the targets now include staff as well as students. Legislation is moving in the right direction. Even so, the independent school case shows that legal frameworks alone leave gaps. Schools must fill those gaps with policy, education and pastoral care. For Australian educators, image-based abuse has become a core child safety issue, on par with physical bullying. Accordingly, the schools that respond well will be the ones that treat it that way now, before the next group chat, the next harvested photo and the next 21 names on a police list.
