{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-27T06:17:00.916Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"photography","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"","response":"lawsuit","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":2,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":1,"lawsuits":2,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2024-lawrence-kansas-gaggle-ai-flagged-students-class-photos-as-child-sexual-images-pupils-questioned-photos-removed","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In November 2023, USD 497 and its Board of Education implemented the use of Gaggle'; 'Gaggle operates through artificial intelligence that flags items for review. Gaggle moderators conduct a brief contextual review to determine the propriety of the content at issue and quarantine the item unless the flag is deemed a false positive.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'challenges the district’s 2023 decision to use a third-party artificial intelligence-powered software service called Gaggle to monitor student usage of district-issued computers'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Lawrence school district began using Gaggle to monitor student school accounts in November 2023; the plaintiffs' complaint says Gaggle operates through artificial intelligence that flags items for review by Gaggle moderators.","causal_attribution":"The complaint's description of the system; the newspaper describes the service the same way. Gaggle's own account of how the flag arose is not in the inspected sources."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'In early 2024, District administrators summoned art, journalism, and photography students to the front office at Lawrence High School for questioning.'; 'administrators told the group that their images had been flagged by Gaggle for indecent exposure and child pornography.'; 'admitted they had not seen the content at issue, but rather, that they were informed second-hand by Gaggle that the content had been flagged.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'told the group that Gaggle had flagged their images for indecent exposure and child pornography.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"According to the complaint, in early 2024 administrators summoned art, journalism and photography students to the front office and told them their images had been flagged by Gaggle for indecent exposure and child pornography, while admitting they had not seen the flagged content themselves.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' allegations; the court's order summarises the amended complaint and does not find these facts."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'of having photos or documents on her computer that constituted indecent exposure or child pornography.'; 'she had uploaded a photography assignment that included a picture of one of her friends who was fully clothed and wearing a spaghetti-strap tank top.'; 'to recall and explain from memory minute details regarding the photographs she had taken, but she was not allowed to view or display those photos.'; 'her detention and interrogation by Assistant Principal'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the complaint, an assistant principal accused a photography student of having images constituting indecent exposure or child pornography, refused to let her view the images, and questioned her about them from memory; she told him she had uploaded that day a photography assignment showing a fully clothed friend.","causal_attribution":"A plaintiff's account in the complaint."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'determined that the flagged content consisted of original artistic photographs taken and uploaded for class assignments.'; 'discovered that multiple digital photographs had been removed from their school accounts.'; 'would trigger additional scrutiny, interrogations, deletions, and/or discipline.'; 'and other students later confirmed the seizures by comparing their school accounts to independent backup drives.'; 'was subsequently required to meet with District staff and explain each image in her photography portfolio.'; 'Only after months of student advocacy did the District restore the removed images.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"According to the complaint, the flagged content consisted of original photographs taken for class assignments; the photographs were removed from the students' school accounts without notice, the students found this by comparing their accounts with personal backups, one student had to explain each image in her portfolio to district staff and became concerned that future assignments would trigger more scrutiny, and the district restored the images only after months of advocacy.","causal_attribution":"Plaintiffs' allegations; the removal is also reported by AP (c5)."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Students in one photography class were called to the principal's office over concerns Gaggle had detected nudity. The photos had been automatically deleted from the students' Google Drives, but students who had backups of the flagged images on their own devices showed it was a false alarm. District officials said they later adjusted the software's settings to reduce false alerts.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"},{"locator":"'Students in one photography class were called to the principal’s office over concerns Gaggle had detected nudity.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The Associated Press reported that students in a photography class were called to the principal's office over concerns Gaggle had detected nudity, that the photos had been automatically deleted from their Google Drives, that students with backups showed it was a false alarm, and that district officials said they later adjusted the software's settings to reduce false alerts.","causal_attribution":"AP's reporting, relayed by the Journal-World from AP's review; the settings change is the district officials' statement to AP. Both outlets carry one AP origin."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Plaintiffs have not cited (and the Court has not found) any law that when AI surveillance flags student material as potentially criminal, a school official cannot reasonably rely on that information to call in a student for questioning.'; 'the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief of the graduated students, the claims against the School Board and, based on qualified immunity, all claims against'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 8 April 2026 the court dismissed, on qualified immunity, all claims against the assistant principal and another official, saying it had found no law that when AI surveillance flags student material as potentially criminal a school official cannot reasonably rely on it to call in a student for questioning; it also dismissed the graduated students' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and the claims against the school board.","causal_attribution":"The court's ruling; it decides qualified immunity on the pleadings and makes no finding on whether the flags were accurate."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Date of Last Known Filing: Oct. 26, 2026'; 'Notice to Take Deposition'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The case remained open in late October 2026, with depositions noticed and a last known filing on 26 October 2026.","causal_attribution":"Docket record."}],"effects":[{"label":"students questioned over an AI flag calling their class photography indecent exposure or child pornography, with their photographs removed for months","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ksd.159249/gov.uscourts.ksd.159249.1.0.pdf","kind":"court_filing","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-27; no translation.","independence_group":"dkan-2-25-cv-02428-complaint"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ksd.159249/gov.uscourts.ksd.159249.56.0.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-27; no translation.","independence_group":"dkan-2-25-cv-02428-order"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/schools-using-ai-surveillance-protect-110342650.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-27; no translation.","independence_group":"ap-gaggle-2025"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://www2.ljworld.com/news/schools/2025/aug/07/lawrence-school-district-sued-in-federal-court-for-use-of-ai-powered-surveillance-system-students-claim-gaggle-results-in-illegal-searches/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-27; no translation.","independence_group":"ljworld-2025-08-07"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70989873/","kind":"court_docket","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-27; no translation.","independence_group":"courtlistener-docket"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["education","public_services","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["Exactly when in early 2024 the questioning took place and how many students were summoned.","Whether Gaggle's human moderators reviewed the specific photographs before the district was notified, and what they concluded.","Whether the photographs were removed automatically by Gaggle or by a reviewer; AP says automatically deleted, the complaint describes moderator quarantine.","Gaggle's and the district's responses to these specific allegations in the litigation.","The outcome of the remaining claims against the district."],"geography":{"basis":"The complaint places the questioning at a Lawrence, Kansas, high school of the district's own school accounts; the suit is in the federal District of Kansas.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a school's use of an AI monitoring flag about students: the complaint and AP describe Gaggle flagging photography students' class images as nudity or child pornography, the students' questioning and the removal of their work, district officials told AP it was a false alarm, and a federal court has ruled on the official's reliance on the AI flag.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-27"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The complaint says Gaggle operates through artificial intelligence that flags items for review and that administrators told the students their images had been flagged by Gaggle for indecent exposure and child pornography, then questioned them without having seen the images; AP reports Gaggle detected nudity in the photography class's uploads, that district officials called it a false alarm and adjusted the software's settings, and the court's order treats the flag as an AI surveillance flag on which the official relied. Gaggle moderators review flags before schools are notified, and no inspected source says what each reviewer saw.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["made_claim_about","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Lawrence, Kansas: students say Gaggle AI monitoring flagged class photography as child sexual images, leading to questioning and removed work","summary":"The Lawrence, Kansas, school district began using Gaggle, a student-monitoring service, on school accounts in November 2023. A federal lawsuit filed on 1 August 2025 by current and former students alleges that Gaggle, which the complaint says operates through artificial intelligence that flags items for review by Gaggle moderators, flagged original photography assignments uploaded by art and photography students. According to the complaint, in early 2024 security officers took students out of class to the front office of a Lawrence high school, where administrators told them their images had been flagged by Gaggle for indecent exposure and child pornography; an assistant principal accused a photography student of having such material, refused to let her view the images, and questioned her about them from memory, and administrators admitted they had not seen the flagged content. The student told them she had uploaded that day a photography assignment showing a fully clothed friend; the complaint says the flagged content consisted of original photographs taken for class assignments, that students found their photographs removed from their school accounts only by comparing them with personal backups, that one student had to explain each image in her portfolio to district staff and became concerned that future assignments would bring more scrutiny, and that the district restored the images only after months of advocacy. The Associated Press, in reporting that included an analysis of the district's Gaggle alert records, said the photos had been automatically deleted and that students with backups showed it was a false alarm, and that district officials said they later adjusted the software's settings to reduce false alerts. On 8 April 2026 the federal court dismissed, on qualified immunity, the claims against the assistant principal and another official, saying it had found no law establishing that a school official cannot rely on an AI surveillance flag to call in a student for questioning; other claims against the district continue, and the docket shows depositions noticed in October 2026.","incidentDate":"2024-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2025-08-01","aiSystem":"Gaggle Safety Management, a student-monitoring service that scans school email and files; the complaint says it operates through artificial intelligence that flags items for review by Gaggle moderators, and the district's board agenda described trained safety experts and an algorithm","aiProduct":"Gaggle","aiCompany":"Gaggle.Net, Inc.","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["educational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the plaintiffs' complaint, students were taken out of class and questioned after Gaggle flagged their photography assignments as indecent exposure or child pornography, their photographs were removed from their school accounts without notice and restored only after months, one student had to explain every image in her portfolio, and she became concerned that future assignments would bring more scrutiny. District officials told the Associated Press it was a false alarm and that settings were adjusted.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"Two photography students who are plaintiffs describe being questioned and having photographs removed (complaint paras 93 to 126). The complaint and AP describe other art, journalism and photography students summoned or flagged without a count, so they are not quantified. The 1,200 alerts in AP's records analysis are alerts, not harmed people, and are not counted.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_ongoing","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ksd.159249/gov.uscourts.ksd.159249.1.0.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Students' complaint against the Lawrence school district over Gaggle, D. Kan. 2:25-cv-02428, filed 1 August 2025","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-27T03:08:48.076061+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-27T03:08:48.076061+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["gaggle","school-monitoring","student-surveillance","false-flag","photography","qualified-immunity","kansas"]},{"id":"2025-beijing-internet-court-finds-wechat-group-member-used-ai-to-turn-anothers-profile-photo-into-exposed-deformed-images","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'被告未经原告同意，使用AI软件将原告微信头像肖像照生成衣着暴露的动漫风格图片，并发送至该摄影交流微信群内'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'被告拿群内原告微信头像照片，利用AI生成衣着暴露、形体畸形的动漫图片'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"Without consent, the defendant used AI software to turn the claimant's WeChat profile portrait photo into revealingly dressed cartoon-style images and posted them in a photography WeChat group both belonged to.","causal_attribution":"Court account; the AI generation is also the defendant's own description in the defence."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'原告多次制止，被告仍继续使用AI软件，将原告的微信头像AI生成衣着暴露、身体畸形的动漫风格图片，并私信原告'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'人物腿部为木头状，甚至存在三只手臂的图片'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"After the claimant objected several times, the defendant kept using the AI software to make images with exposed bodies and deformed limbs, including wooden legs and three arms, and sent them to the claimant privately.","causal_attribution":"Court account."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'被诉侵权图片不具有指向性或可识别性'; '图片为AI自动生成，被告生成图片时并未下达任何指令故意丑化人物形象'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The defendant argued that the images were not identifiable as the claimant and were generated automatically by AI without any instruction to uglify.","causal_attribution":"Defendant's submission as summarised by the court."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'被告的群发行为构成对原告肖像权、名誉权的侵害，被告的私信行为构成一般人格权侵害'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'在脸型、蹲姿、手势、造型等方面均具有高度的对应关系'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'图片发至微信群，群成员可以识别原型，丑化内容降低原告社会评价，侵害肖像权、名誉权'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The court found that group members could identify the claimant from the images, that posting them in the group infringed the claimant's portrait and reputation rights, and that the private messages infringed the claimant's general personality rights.","causal_attribution":"The Beijing Internet Court's own published write-up of its findings (s2, credited to the court); the judgment itself was not inspected."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'被判赔礼道歉并赔偿原告精神损失'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'判令被告向原告赔礼道歉，赔偿原告精神损失。'; '目前，该案判决已生效。'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court ordered the defendant to apologise and to compensate the claimant for mental harm.","causal_attribution":"The Beijing Internet Court's own published write-up (s2), which also says the judgment has taken effect; the amount is not reported."}],"effects":[{"label":"court found AI-made exposed and deformed images of a group member, posted in the group and sent privately, infringed portrait, reputation and personality rights","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://xinwen.bjd.com.cn/content/s68a84353e4b02424b0bf309f.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-22 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Beijing Daily report of the Beijing Internet Court's notice of the case; the judgment was not inspected.","independence_group":"beijing-internet-court-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.ciplawyer.cn/articles/157422.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-22 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Legal-industry site carrying the court's fuller write-up of the reasoning; same court account.","independence_group":"beijing-internet-court-account"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://xinwen.bjd.com.cn/content/s6ad969cce4b0e42f8f01e464.html","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"zh","translation_note":"Read in the original Chinese on 2026-10-22 (HTTP 200). English renderings in this record are the research agent's (an AI's) own translations; no human translator reviewed them. Feature on the Beijing Internet Court quoting its vice-president; it restates the case.","independence_group":"beijing-internet-court-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["relationships","privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["When the images were made and posted, and when the judgment was given.","Which AI software was used.","The amount of compensation for mental harm and the case number.","How many members the group had."],"geography":{"basis":"The case was decided by the Beijing Internet Court in China. The sources describe a WeChat group but do not say where its members were, so no event or affected-person country is recorded.","court_countries":["CN"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): the Beijing Internet Court found that AI-generated images made from a group member's profile photo, posted in a WeChat group and sent privately, infringed the claimant's portrait, reputation and personality rights. One reporting chain, the court's own account, read in three Chinese sources.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found that the defendant used AI software to generate the images from the claimant's profile portrait photo, and the defendant's own defence said the images were generated by AI. The generated images depicted the claimant (depicted_or_impersonated); the court found that posting them lowered the claimant's standing in the group and that the private images caused humiliation.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Beijing Internet Court finds a WeChat group member infringed another member's portrait and reputation by posting AI-made exposed cartoon images of the claimant","summary":"The Beijing Internet Court reported in August 2025 that two members of a photography WeChat group had gone to court after one used AI software, without consent, to turn the other's profile portrait photo into revealingly dressed cartoon-style images and posted them in the group. According to the court, the claimant objected several times, but the defendant kept using the software to make images with exposed bodies and deformed limbs, including wooden legs and three arms, and sent them to the claimant privately. The defendant argued the images were not identifiable and were generated automatically by AI. The court found that group members could identify the claimant, that posting the images in the group infringed the claimant's portrait and reputation rights, and that the private messages infringed the claimant's general personality rights. It ordered an apology and compensation for mental harm.","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"unknown","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2025-08-22","aiSystem":"AI image software, not named in the court's account, that the defendant used to turn the claimant's profile portrait photo into cartoon-style images with exposed bodies and deformed limbs","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["reputational_harm","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Beijing Internet Court's account, AI-made images of a WeChat group member with an exposed body and deformed limbs were posted in the group and sent privately against the claimant's objections; the court found that they lowered the claimant's social standing, caused humiliation and infringed the claimant's portrait, reputation and personality rights.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the claimant whose profile photo was used (Beijing Internet Court account). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"CN","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"lawsuit_filed","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://xinwen.bjd.com.cn/content/s68a84353e4b02424b0bf309f.html","primarySourceLabel":"Beijing Daily, 22 August 2025: using AI to mock and uglify another person's portrait held to infringe personality rights","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:08:08.716343+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:08:08.716343+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-image","portrait-rights","reputation","wechat","court-ruling","beijing","china","depicted-or-impersonated"]}]}