School picture day is typically pricey, especially for families with multiple kids. So when TikTok user Carlie Bond posted a video showing how she used ChatGPT to turn casual home photos of her three children into professional-looking school portraits — complete with the classic gradient background — it struck a nerve.
“School pictures x3 kids?? In this economy?” Bond wrote. “So we took our own and let my good friend Chat help us out.”
While some fellow parents were concerned (including that the kids’ images could be used for AI training), others supported her idea: “Tell me why it cost me over $100 for my 3 kids,” one wrote. Another said she pays “just under $170 for all four digital files.” On the surface, Bond’s approach of taking her own photos, skipping the sitting fee and getting a similar result seems harmless enough.
Thanks for subscribing!
The money news that actually matters.
By signing up, you accept Moneywise Terms of Use, Subscription Agreement, and Privacy Policy.
But with that comes something less legally defensible: Multiple TikTok users shared they use ChatGPT to erase watermarks from professional photo proofs, essentially obtaining high-resolution images without paying for them. One post (that’s been removed from TikTok) garnered more than a million likes, Fast Company notes.
The legal exposure and risk
Removing a copyright watermark from an image you haven’t paid for could be found to be copyright infringement under federal law.
According to the U.S. Copyright Office, “Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each,” and up to $150,000 per work if willful infringement is proven. The minimum, even for innocent infringement, is $750 per image, according to 17 U.S.C. § 504. There’s no blanket exception for personal use.
Watermark removal may also trigger a separate legal exposure within the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Under Section 1202, removing copyright management information — which includes watermarks — carries civil damages of $2,500-$25,000 per violation.
That’s likely on top of any copyright infringement claim, lawyer Mickey Osterreicher of Finnerty Osterreicher & Abdulla, and general counsel of the National Press Photographers Association, told Moneywise: “That separate claim doesn’t require copyright registration, and removal alone doesn’t automatically establish every element of that claim.”
He notes, for a U.S. image, the photographer generally must have registered the work with the U.S. Copyright Office before bringing a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court.
And registration timing matters too: “Statutory damages and attorney’s fees generally require registration before infringement began or within three months after first publication,” or recovery for infringement is often limited to damages and any attributable profits, Osterreicher says.
But he stresses the importance of distinguishing people editing photographs they took themselves from people using AI to copy a professional photographer’s proof and remove its watermark without permission.
For an isolated school-photo infringement, Osterreicher believes a cease-and-desist demand to stop using the image and pay compensation, or a negotiated settlement, is more likely than a $150,000 judgment, though “That’s a practical assessment, not a documented average or assurance that liability would be limited to the purchase price.”
Must Read
- Jeff Bezos backs a platform that lets anyone invest in rental homes for as little as $100 — 6 ways to build wealth like a landlord without actually being one
- The tax breaks in Trump's 'big beautiful bill' expire after 2028. Here are 4 moves to make before the window closes
What parents are actually saving
The financial calculus that’s driving the trend is real. According to photography company Capturely, the average family spends between $25 and $60 for a print package, with digital files of one child ranging from $15–$125. For families with multiple kids, costs can easily exceed $150 for a single photo day.
Bond’s specific ChatGPT tactic sidesteps that cost and doesn’t raise the same legal issues, since no professional work is being copied. She took the photos herself. But the main trade-off is quality: Several commenters noted that AI image editors frequently alter faces and features despite instructions not to.
But using AI to erase a watermark doesn’t erase the photographer’s rights, Osterreicher highlights. “While the $150,000 maximum may not be the expected outcome, saving the price of a school photograph can still create liability far beyond what it would have cost to purchase it.”
The bigger risks few are thinking about
Besides the legal exposure, some commenters flagged a different concern: Feeding children’s photos into AI platforms. “You are putting your children’s image and likeness through AI that can be utilized by AI later and stored in its memory,” a user warned.
Osterreicher also highlights the moral or ethical implications: “Taking a photographer’s work without permission, credit or compensation is, in everyday terms, no different from stealing something that doesn’t belong to you — hardly the example a parent should be setting for their child.”
For parents weighing the options, the math is simple: The cost of school photos, however annoying, is a fraction of what a single copyright infringement claim could cost. In that light, a $150 photo package looks a lot more reasonable.
You May Also Like
- Dave Ramsey warns nearly 50% of Americans are making 1 big Social Security mistake — here’s what it is and 3 simple steps to fix it ASAP
- A single line on your car insurance policy could be inflating your premium by up to 30% — here's what to change
With a writing and editing career spanning over 15 years, Emma creates and refines content across a broad spectrum of industries, including personal finance, lifestyle, travel, health & wellness, real estate, beauty & fitness and B2B/SaaS/tech.
