“From Team Photos to AI Trading Cards: Are We Celebrating Young Athletes or Exposing Their Digital Identities?”
CAVEAT: This weekend, we were contacted by a parent asking us what our thoughts were specific to club sports teams and school teams using AI to create player profile cards or posters on youth and teens. We are not opposed to the creative use of artificial intelligence (AI) in photography, graphic design, education, or youth sports. In fact, we believe that when used responsibly, AI can provide some exciting opportunities for young people to express themselves, celebrate their accomplishments, and participate in creative activities that were once primarily available to professional athletes and sporting organizations with significant marketing budgets. Our concern is not with the technology itself, but rather how it is being used, what personal information is being collected and shared, who has access to that information, and whether parents, caregivers, schools, and sporting organizations fully understand what happens to a child’s photograph once it is uploaded into an AI system. Consequently, the risks discussed in this article should not be interpreted as applying equally to every AI platform. Our objective is to encourage informed decision making rather than fear based reactions. We believe that celebrating young athletes and protecting their privacy are not competing objectives, and with the right safeguards, both can be accomplished. Although this article focuses specifically on youth sports teams, it is important to recognize that the principles, concerns, and recommendations discussed are equally relevant to any club, organization, or community group that works with youth and teens.
From School Picture Day to AI Generated Sports Superstars
Back in 2023, we published a Facebook post titled “The Ethical Dilemma of AI-Enhanced School and Team Photos: Unveiling the Unseen Impact” (1). At the time, we had become aware of an incident involving the use of artificial intelligence to digitally enhance photographs of teenagers without the knowledge or informed consent of the young people or their parents. Our concerns focused on several important issues, including unrealistic beauty standards, privacy, consent, image retention, the geographical location of servers, and the possibility that photographs or associated personal information could be used for purposes beyond those originally intended. At the time, much of the discussion surrounding AI photography focused on enhancing an existing image, removing blemishes, changing backgrounds, improving lighting, or making someone appear more conventionally attractive.
Fast forward to 2026, and the technological capabilities have changed considerably. What was once largely about digitally enhancing an existing photograph has evolved into something far more sophisticated. Today, generative AI can take an ordinary headshot of a young athlete and transform it into a professional looking sports trading card, cinematic team poster, esports player profile, or promotional graphic that would have previously required expensive photography equipment, professional lighting, specialized graphic design software, and considerable editing expertise. A teenager photographed against a plain background can now appear to be standing inside a packed professional sports stadium, surrounded by dramatic floodlights, atmospheric fog, cheering spectators, and customized team branding. AI can change their clothing, place them in a professional looking uniform, modify their facial expression, alter their physique, and create an entirely fictional sporting environment. The finished product can look remarkably realistic, and in some circumstances, the image may be difficult for the average viewer to distinguish from an actual photograph.
We are also seeing growing interest in these types of AI generated sports graphics across social media, where parents, amateur photographers, sports teams, and young athletes are experimenting with tools that can create professional looking promotional material in a matter of seconds (2). Although we have not identified reliable Canadian research that quantifies how many youth sporting organizations are currently using generative AI for this purpose, the technology has made this type of content increasingly accessible, and examples are becoming easier to encounter online. We believe this is an emerging practice worth discussing now, rather than waiting until privacy concerns or incidents involving the misuse of children’s images become more widespread.
On the surface, this can seem like a harmless and exciting development. What young hockey player wouldn’t enjoy seeing themselves featured on a trading card resembling something produced for the NHL? What young basketball, soccer, football, baseball, volleyball, or esports player wouldn’t be excited to see their photograph transformed into a professional-looking sports advertisement? We understand the appeal, and we would suggest that for many young athletes, this type of creative recognition can be a positive experience that celebrates their participation, commitment, and accomplishments.
However, as digital literacy and internet safety educators, we believe there are some important questions that parents, caregivers, schools, and sporting organizations need to consider before participating in this growing practice. The concern is not simply what the AI creates, it’s also what we give the AI to create it, what the system may do with that information, and what happens when the finished image is shared publicly.
A Real-World Demonstration of How Easily This Can Be Done
To illustrate just how accessible this technology has become, we recently conducted a simple demonstration using a generative AI image platform. We started with an ordinary adult headshot and instructed the AI to transform it into a cinematic esports player poster featuring dramatic stadium floodlights, atmospheric fog, realistic gaming apparel, and the visual appearance of a professional sporting advertisement. Within moments, the system produced a highly detailed image that looked like something created by a professional sports marketing department.
We then asked the AI to create a younger looking fictional player, approximately 16 years of age, using the same general visual concept. The resulting image depicted a teenage esports competitor wearing a gaming headset and professional-looking team jersey, surrounded by the visual elements commonly associated with competitive gaming and professional sports. We subsequently added a fictional player profile identifying the character as 16 years old, living on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and attending a fictional school called Otter Bay High School.
The final result looked remarkably convincing. It resembled the type of promotional material that could easily appear on a youth sports team’s social media account, a school esports website, or a personalized digital trading card. The stadium, the uniform, the team branding, the sporting environment, and the player profile were all created or assembled using AI. The teenage character and school were fictional, yet the overall presentation looked authentic.
This demonstration was not intended to suggest that the fictional teenager depicted in the image was an actual student or athlete. Rather, it was designed to show how easily generative AI can create a believable sports identity and attach personal information to it within seconds. In our example, the identifying details were fictional. However, imagine if the same process were applied to an actual 16 year old athlete, using their real photograph, full name, actual high school, hometown, jersey number, and sporting affiliation. Suddenly, what began as a fun creative project could become a publicly accessible profile containing several pieces of personal information about a real child.
This is where we believe parents, caregivers, and sporting organizations need to pay closer attention. The ability to create something visually impressive should not automatically be confused with having the permission, legal authority, or ethical justification to create and distribute it.
The Important Difference Between Taking a Photograph and Uploading It Into an AI System
For decades, parents and caregivers have become accustomed to signing photography consent forms when registering their children for school, extracurricular activities, or organized sports. These forms commonly authorize schools, sporting organizations, or contracted photographers to take photographs and, depending on the wording, use those images for yearbooks, team rosters, websites, social media accounts, and promotional materials. However, we believe there is an important distinction between granting permission for a photograph to be taken and granting permission for that same photograph to be uploaded into an external generative AI platform.
When a photographer takes a conventional team photograph, the image may remain within the photographer’s editing software, storage system, or contracted processing environment. Although traditional digital photography also raises privacy and security considerations, generative AI can introduce additional questions about how the photograph is processed, whether it is retained, whether it may be used to improve or train AI models, and whether other companies or service providers are involved. These questions become particularly important when the photographs involve children and teenagers who may have limited understanding of how their personal information is being collected, processed, and potentially reused.
For example, imagine a parent who signs a consent form authorizing their child’s hockey association to take photographs for the team’s website. Several weeks later, a well intentioned volunteer decides to create personalized AI generated player cards for every athlete on the team. The volunteer downloads the original team photographs, uploads each child’s image into a consumer AI platform, and asks the system to create a professional looking sports poster. The volunteer may genuinely believe they are doing something positive for the children, and their intentions may be entirely appropriate. However, did the original consent form authorize uploading those photographs to an external AI provider? Was the sporting organization aware of the platform being used? Did anyone review the platform’s privacy policy or terms of service? Were the images uploaded through an account that allows them to be used for model improvement? How long will the original photographs and generated images be retained, and who will have access to them?
These are not unreasonable questions, and they aren’t anti-technology questions. They are basic privacy and safeguarding questions that should be answered before children’s personal information is shared with an external technology provider.
Here in Canada, privacy obligations can vary depending on the province, the type of organization involved, and the circumstances under which personal information is collected, used, or disclosed. Federal legislation such as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), as well as applicable provincial privacy legislation, may be relevant (3). Schools and public bodies can also be subject to different statutory requirements than private businesses or volunteer sporting organizations. For example, here in British Columbia, private sector organizations may be subject to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) (4), while public schools and other public bodies generally operate under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) (5). The precise obligations depend on the organization and the circumstances, including whether a particular activity falls within the applicable legislation.
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has also emphasized the importance of protecting children’s personal information and recognizing that young people deserve meaningful privacy protections in digital environments (6). These principles are particularly relevant when organizations collect photographs of children and then use emerging technologies in ways that may not have been contemplated when the original consent was obtained.
The important takeaway is that a photography consent form should not automatically be interpreted as blanket permission for every future technological use of a child’s image.
When an AI Sports Card Becomes a Personal Information Profile
One of the developments that concerns us most is the growing ability to combine an AI generated photograph with personal information to create what looks like an official player profile. A typical sports trading card or team poster might include the athlete’s name, age, jersey number, team, school, hometown, playing position, and sporting accomplishments. In some cases, these details are already publicly available through team websites, tournament rosters, or social media accounts. However, combining them into one visually appealing, easily shared digital graphic can make that information considerably more accessible.
This is an important distinction because privacy risks are not always associated with one particularly sensitive piece of information. Sometimes the concern arises when several pieces of seemingly harmless information are combined, allowing someone to build a more complete picture of an individual’s identity, interests, relationships, and routines. In the world of online investigations, this process is often associated with open source intelligence, commonly referred to as OSINT, where publicly accessible information is collected and analyzed to identify patterns, connections, or other details about a person. This is something we do here at the White Hatter in our investigations.
Consider our fictional 16 year old esports player. The AI generated poster identified the character’s age, geographical location, and fictional high school. If this were an actual teenager, and the poster also included their real name, team affiliation, or social media username, someone viewing the image might be able to connect that information with other publicly available material. This could include school websites, tournament schedules, team rosters, social media accounts, or photographs posted by friends and family members. Individually, these details might not appear particularly concerning. Collectively, however, they could provide a stranger with a clearer understanding of who that young person is, where they spend time, and what activities they participate in.
There is also a social engineering consideration, someone attempting to contact a young athlete could use information from a public player profile to appear familiar with the teenager’s sporting interests, school community, or team. A message referencing the child’s sport, jersey number, or recent tournament could appear more credible than a generic unsolicited message. This does not mean that every publicly shared sports card will attract someone with harmful intentions, and we do not want parents and caregivers to believe that posting a team photograph automatically places their child in danger. However, we do believe that unnecessary personal information can increase opportunities for identification, unwanted contact, or manipulation, especially when it comes to the online grooming of youth.
As we often teach in our internet safety programs, information does not always become sensitive because of one individual detail. Sometimes it becomes sensitive because several seemingly harmless details are brought together. This is why we encourage parents, caregivers, and sporting organizations to think beyond whether a particular piece of information is already publicly available and instead consider whether it is necessary to make that information easier to collect, connect, and distribute. The question should not simply be, “Is this information already online?” It should also be, “Do we need to make it easier for strangers to find, collect, and connect?”
What Happens to Your Child’s Photograph After It Is Uploaded?
This is perhaps one of the most important questions parents, caregivers, schools, and sporting organizations should be asking before using generative AI to create youth sports posters or trading cards.
When a photograph is uploaded into a cloud based generative AI system, the image is generally transmitted to infrastructure operated by the provider or its service partners for processing. What happens after that depends on the platform, the type of account being used, the applicable privacy settings, the provider’s contractual commitments, and the service’s current data handling practices. Some providers may retain uploaded images or generated content for specified periods to support service functionality, security, or legal compliance. Others may provide options to delete content, limit retention, or restrict the use of customer data for AI training. Some may even sell the images to third party AI vendors to help train their AI large language models. Business and educational services may offer protections that differ substantially from those available through free consumer accounts.
This is why we believe it is insufficient for a sporting organization to simply tell parents that AI was used to create the posters. Parents should know which AI provider was used, what information was uploaded, whether the service permits the use of that information for training or product improvement, how long the information may be retained, and what deletion options are available. They should also understand whether the service uses additional third party providers to process or store the images and whether appropriate contractual and security protections are in place.
Another important distinction involves the difference between deleting an image from a user’s account and ensuring that all copies have been removed from the provider’s systems. Depending on the service, backup systems, security logs, legal retention requirements, and other technical processes may affect when information is permanently deleted. Parents should not automatically assume that pressing a delete button means every copy of their child’s photograph has immediately disappeared from every system involved in processing it.
There is also the question of where the information is being stored and processed. Some AI providers operate infrastructure in multiple countries, which can introduce additional legal and privacy considerations. However, it would be inaccurate to suggest that storing information outside Canada automatically makes a service unsafe or unlawful. What matters is whether the organization using the service understands the applicable legal requirements, has assessed the relevant risks, and has implemented appropriate safeguards.
We would also encourage parents and caregivers to distinguish between image metadata and the information visible within the photograph itself. Metadata can include technical information such as file creation dates, camera details, and, in some circumstances, location information. Not every photograph contains location metadata, and many online platforms remove some metadata during processing. However, the personal information visible within the image, or added to the finished sports card, may present a more direct privacy concern than metadata alone.
The broader issue is accountability. If a youth sporting organization is collecting photographs of children and using an external AI service to process those images, it should be able to explain what information is being collected, why it is needed, where it is going, and how it is being protected.
Are We Unintentionally Teaching Young People That Their Natural Appearance Needs Improvement?
One of the concerns we raised in our original 2023 Facebook post remains relevant today, particularly when AI is used to modify the physical appearance of children and teenagers. Generative AI can do considerably more than change a photograph’s background. Depending on the platform and instructions provided, it may smooth skin, remove blemishes, change facial proportions, alter body composition, enhance muscle definition, or make a young athlete appear older, stronger, or more conventionally attractive.
For some teenagers, seeing themselves transformed into a professional looking sports star may be exciting and confidence building. For others, particularly those already struggling with body image or self esteem, the experience may reinforce the belief that their natural appearance is somehow inadequate. We need to be careful not to assume that every teenager will respond to AI generated images in the same way. Research examining social media, appearance related comparison, and digitally manipulated images suggests that effects can vary depending on the individual, the content, and the context in which it is encountered. We should also recognize that research examining traditional photo filters and social media appearance comparisons cannot automatically be treated as proof that AI generated youth sports posters produce the same outcomes.
However, we believe parents and caregivers should pay particular attention when AI generated sports posters begin changing the physical characteristics of young athletes rather than simply placing their existing appearance into a creative environment. There is an important difference between making a teenager look like they are standing in a professional sports stadium and making that teenager look as though they have a different face or body.
This concern is not limited to teenage girls, although appearance related pressures can be particularly significant for some girls and young women. Boys and young men can also experience body image pressures involving muscularity, height, athletic appearance, and perceived physical strength. When AI generated sports posters routinely depict young athletes with exaggerated physiques, flawless skin, or idealized facial features, we should consider what messages those images may communicate about what an athlete is supposed to look like.
We would argue that youth sports should celebrate participation, effort, teamwork, skill development, resilience, and personal growth rather than reinforcing the idea that a young athlete needs to look physically different to be worthy of recognition. One approach celebrates the athlete through creative presentation. The other may unintentionally communicate that the athlete needs to be physically changed to look impressive.
The Difference Between a Real Photograph and a Synthetic Sporting Moment
Another consideration involves the growing realism of AI generated sports photography. When a young athlete is photographed holding a trophy they actually won, standing with teammates after a championship, or competing in a real sporting event, the photograph documents something that happened. However, when AI creates an image of that same athlete standing inside a packed professional stadium, wearing a fictional uniform, or celebrating a championship they never participated in, the finished image represents a fictional event.
We are not suggesting that creating fantasy sports posters is inherently wrong. Young people have been imagining themselves as professional athletes for generations, and there can be considerable enjoyment and creativity in bringing those dreams to life. The concern arises when AI generated imagery is presented without sufficient context, particularly when it becomes difficult to distinguish between a real photograph and an artificially generated representation.
A young athlete may be depicted with a body shape, level of muscular development, facial appearance, or sporting achievement that does not reflect reality. AI may also alter team uniforms, sponsor logos, sporting equipment, or other details in ways that unintentionally misrepresent the athlete or organization. In some circumstances, an image may even suggest that a child participated in a particular competition, represented a specific organization, or achieved a sporting accomplishment that never occurred.
There is an additional issue involving authenticity. As AI generated images become more realistic, children and teenagers are growing up in an environment where photographs can no longer automatically be treated as reliable evidence that an event occurred. We believe this presents an excellent opportunity for parents, caregivers, and educators to teach AI literacy. Young people should understand that a photograph can be visually convincing while depicting something entirely fictional.
Rather than simply telling children that AI generated pictures are dangerous, we should be helping them recognize the difference between a photograph documenting reality and an image created to represent an idea, aspiration, or fictional scenario. We should also be teaching them to ask who created the image, what changes were made, why those changes were made, and whether the image is being presented in a way that could mislead others. This is where media literacy and AI literacy intersect. The ability to create realistic synthetic images makes it increasingly important that young people understand not only how to produce digital content, but also how to critically evaluate what they see.
Who Owns the Photograph, and Who Controls the AI Generated Image?
Another issue that is often overlooked involves the rights associated with the original photograph and the finished AI generated image. Parents may assume that because the photograph depicts their child, they automatically own the image and can control every subsequent use. However, ownership and usage rights can be more complicated.
The original photographer may hold copyright in the photograph, subject to any applicable agreement. The sporting organization may have obtained certain licensing rights, while the AI platform may impose additional contractual terms governing uploaded content and generated outputs. The legal treatment of copyright in AI generated material also remains an evolving area, with different jurisdictions taking different approaches to human authorship, originality, and ownership.
This means that a parent, caregiver, photographer, or sporting organization should not assume that uploading a photograph into an AI system automatically transfers ownership to the AI company. Equally, they should not assume that the resulting image can be used for any purpose without considering the original photographer’s rights, the platform’s terms, and any applicable consent requirements.
For youth sporting organizations, this becomes particularly relevant when AI generated images are used in fundraising campaigns, promotional advertising, sponsorship materials, merchandise, or commercial activities. An image originally created as a fun team keepsake may eventually be used in ways that were never discussed with the young athlete or their parents. We believe these questions should be addressed before the images are created, rather than after a disagreement arises.
The Importance of Meaningful Consent, Including the Youth and Teen Athlete’s Voice
We also believe that any discussion about AI generated images of youth and teenagers must include the concept of meaningful consent. For younger children, parents and caregivers will generally play the primary role in deciding whether photographs can be collected and used, subject to applicable laws and circumstances. However, as children mature, their own understanding, preferences, and ability to participate in decisions about their personal information become increasingly important.
A 16 year old athlete may have strong opinions about whether their photograph should be transformed into an AI generated sports poster and shared publicly. They may enjoy the creative concept but object to having their school identified, their appearance modified, or their image posted on a public social media account. We believe those preferences deserve to be heard and respected.
Consent should also be specific enough that families understand what they are agreeing to. Permission to take a team photograph should not necessarily be treated as permission to upload that photograph into an AI service, substantially modify the athlete’s appearance, attach personal information, and distribute the finished image publicly. Where possible, sporting organizations should separate these decisions rather than combining them into one broad photography release.
We would also encourage organizations to provide meaningful alternatives for families who choose not to participate. A child should not feel excluded from their team simply because their parents decline to have their photograph processed by an external AI platform. Similarly, a teenager who does not want their image publicly shared should not be pressured into participating simply because everyone else on the team has agreed. Consent should be an informed choice, not the price of participation.
The Digital Echo That May Outlast the Sporting Season
A youth sports season may last only a few months, but the digital content created during that season can remain accessible for years. Once an AI generated player card is posted publicly, it may be downloaded, copied, reshared, indexed, or incorporated into other online content. Even if the original post is eventually deleted, copies may remain elsewhere.
This matters because children and teenagers are still developing their understanding of identity, privacy, reputation, and the long term consequences of online sharing. A young athlete may enjoy having their photograph featured on a team poster at age 12 but feel very differently about that same image several years later. They may also change schools, stop participating in the sport, or simply decide that they no longer want certain personal information publicly associated with their name.
The ability to create professional looking graphics quickly and inexpensively should not distract us from considering how those graphics may contribute to a child’s long-term digital footprint. This is particularly important when the image includes information that is not necessary to celebrate the athlete’s accomplishments. For example, does a publicly shared hockey poster really need to identify the child’s school, exact age, hometown, and full name? Would a first name, team nickname, or jersey number accomplish the same celebratory purpose with less disclosure of personal information? We would argue that in many circumstances, it would.
There is also an important distinction between creating a personalized sports poster for a family to enjoy privately and distributing that same poster publicly through a team website or social media account. The privacy considerations are not necessarily the same, and organizations should avoid treating private keepsakes and public promotional material as interchangeable.
Could AI-Generated Youth Sports Images Be Misused?
There is another concern that deserves attention, although it is important not to exaggerate the likelihood of harm. Any publicly accessible photograph of a child or teenager can potentially be copied, manipulated, or misused by someone else. Generative AI has made some forms of image manipulation easier, faster, and more accessible than they were only a few years ago.
For example, a photograph originally created as a harmless sports poster could potentially be altered to depict the young person in a different situation, placed into misleading content, or used to create an impersonation account. In more serious circumstances, AI image manipulation technology can be misused to create abusive or sexualized imagery involving minors. This is a documented safeguarding concern, although it would be inaccurate to suggest that ordinary AI generated sports posters routinely lead to such outcomes.
We here at The White Hatter have worked with families whose children have experienced the misuse of personal photographs, including situations involving AI manipulated imagery. We understand that the consequences can be deeply distressing for the young person involved, particularly when manipulated images are shared among peers, posted publicly, or used as part of harassment, humiliation, or coercion. However, we also want to emphasize that keeping every photograph of a child off the internet is neither realistic nor necessary for most families. Youth and teenagers have legitimate interests in participating in sports, celebrating achievements, building friendships, and sharing appropriate aspects of their lives. The goal should be thoughtful risk reduction rather than attempting to eliminate every possible risk. The relevant question is whether the benefits of publicly sharing a particular image justify the amount of personal information being disclosed and whether reasonable steps have been taken to reduce foreseeable risks.
What Should Schools and Youth Sporting Organizations Be Doing?
We believe schools, sporting associations, coaches, volunteers, and professional photographers should establish clear expectations surrounding the use of generative AI before it becomes part of their photography or promotional practices. This does not require every sporting organization to become an expert in artificial intelligence. However, it does require those responsible for collecting and handling children’s personal information to understand the basic implications of the technology they are using.
At a minimum, organizations should know which AI platform is being used, whether it offers appropriate privacy and security protections, what information will be uploaded, how long that information may be retained, and whether the provider permits customer content to be used for AI training or product improvement. They should also understand whether the service relies on third-party processors and whether appropriate contractual safeguards are in place.
Organizations should obtain meaningful consent before uploading identifiable photographs of young athletes into external AI systems, particularly when that use was not clearly covered by the original photography agreement. They should also consider the preferences of developmentally capable young athletes and provide reasonable alternatives for families who decline participation.
We would encourage schools and sporting organizations to establish clear limits on the personal information included in publicly shared player cards. In many circumstances, an athlete’s first name, team nickname, or jersey number may be sufficient to celebrate their accomplishments without unnecessarily disclosing their full name, exact age, school, hometown, and sporting schedule.
There should also be clear expectations surrounding the alteration of a young athlete’s physical appearance. Using AI to create a dramatic stadium background is very different from changing a child’s facial features, body shape, or muscular development. Organizations should be transparent about what alterations are permitted and should avoid creating unrealistic representations that could negatively affect a young person’s body image or sense of identity.
Another important consideration involves who is authorized to use AI tools on behalf of the organization. Coaches, volunteers, parents, and team photographers should not independently upload children’s photographs into unapproved services simply because the technology is convenient or produces impressive results. A well-intentioned volunteer can create a privacy problem without ever intending to do anything harmful.
Finally, organizations should establish clear expectations surrounding the publication, storage, retention, and deletion of AI generated images. Families should know where the finished images will appear, whether they will be publicly accessible, and whom to contact if they have concerns or wish to request removal. These are not anti-technology measures, they are reasonable safeguarding practices that allow organizations to benefit from emerging technology while respecting the privacy and dignity of the young people entrusted to their care.
A Better Approach: Celebrate the Athlete Without Unnecessarily Exposing Their Identity
We believe there is a practical middle ground between embracing every new AI capability without question and prohibiting AI generated sports imagery altogether. For example, a youth sporting organization could create professional looking team posters using conventional graphic design software, or an appropriately vetted AI service, without unnecessarily disclosing personal information about individual athletes.
AI could be used to generate stadium backgrounds, dramatic lighting effects, team graphics, or other creative elements without requiring the upload of identifiable photographs of children. These backgrounds could then be combined with appropriately authorized athlete photographs using conventional editing tools. This approach may allow teams to achieve much of the same visual impact while reducing the amount of children’s personal information disclosed to external AI providers.
Where a young athlete’s actual photograph is uploaded to an AI service, organizations should choose a provider with appropriate contractual protections, obtain meaningful consent, and limit the personal information included in publicly shared versions. They should also consider whether the final image needs to be publicly distributed at all. A personalized digital trading card shared privately with a family can provide much of the same enjoyment without creating the same level of public exposure.
There is also an opportunity to involve young athletes in the creative process. Rather than simply generating images for them, coaches and parents could use the activity to teach important lessons about AI literacy, digital identity, privacy, consent, and the difference between authentic photography and synthetic media.
Imagine a team activity where young athletes are shown how AI can transform a photograph into a professional sports poster, followed by a discussion about what information should and should not be included before the image is shared online. Such an exercise could help young people develop the skills necessary to make informed decisions about their digital identities.
This reflects a principle we have consistently advocated here at The White Hatter. The solution is not always to remove the technology. Often, it is to teach young people how to use the technology responsibly, ethically, and safely.
When we first raised concerns about AI enhanced school and team photographs back in 2023, the technology was considerably less accessible and less sophisticated than it is today. Our primary concern was that photographs of young people could be altered without their knowledge or consent, potentially affecting body image, privacy, and control over personal information.
Three years later, generative AI has expanded the possibilities considerably. A single photograph can now be transformed into a remarkably realistic sports poster, personalized trading card, or professional-looking promotional image within seconds. What once required specialized technical knowledge and expensive software can now be accomplished by almost anyone with access to a smartphone or computer and a generative AI platform.
We understand why young athletes, parents, coaches, and sporting organizations find this technology exciting. There is something genuinely enjoyable about seeing a child who loves hockey, soccer, basketball, football, or esports represented in a way that resembles their professional sporting heroes. We do not believe that enjoyment should be dismissed or that parents should automatically reject these creative opportunities simply because AI is involved.
However, the impressive appearance of the finished image should not distract us from the questions that matter most.
Was the photograph uploaded with informed consent?
Does the AI provider have appropriate privacy protections?
Is the child’s image being retained or used for purposes beyond creating the poster?
Does the finished graphic disclose more personal information than necessary?
Has the child’s physical appearance been altered in ways that could affect how they see themselves?
Who controls the image once it has been created, and where will it ultimately be shared?
These are questions that responsible adults should be asking before uploading a child’s photograph, not after.
We also believe there is a broader lesson here. As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into photography, education, entertainment, and youth sports, the distinction between what technology allows us to do and what we should do becomes increasingly important. Just because we can transform a child’s photograph into something extraordinary does not mean we should do so without considering the privacy, ethical, developmental, and safeguarding implications.
The responsibility for protecting children in their onlife world does not disappear simply because the technology is exciting, the intentions are positive, or the finished product looks impressive. At the end of the day, the most important thing on a youth sports poster is not the stadium, the lighting, the special effects, or the AI generated graphics, it’s the young person whose identity we have been trusted to protect.
Here at The White Hatter, we believe that celebrating young athletes and protecting their privacy are not competing objectives. With thoughtful planning, informed consent, appropriate technology choices, and meaningful digital literacy education, we can accomplish both.
To help sports clubs, coaches, and parents navigate these emerging concerns, we have attached two editable Word documents for your consideration, “Information Sheet for Families: Athlete Photos and AI-Generated Images” and “Youth Athlete Image Informed Consent Form” (7). When combined with this article, these resources provide a practical information package designed to help sports organizations better understand the privacy, ethical, and safeguarding considerations associated with photographing, sharing, and using artificial intelligence to create images of youth athletes.
We are making both documents freely available under a Creative Commons licence so that sports clubs, associations, schools, and teams can download, modify, and adapt them to meet their specific needs. Our goal is not to create more administrative work for volunteers and coaches, but rather to provide a starting point for meaningful conversations about informed parental consent, athlete autonomy, and the responsible use of emerging technologies. We encourage organizations to use these resources as they see fit, while also having them reviewed by a qualified legal professional to ensure they comply with applicable provincial privacy legislation, consent requirements, and other relevant legal obligations.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
POST SCRIPT: If you are a sports club or organization that works with youth and teen athletes, we here at The White Hatter offer digital literacy, internet safety, privacy, and AI education programs specifically designed to help young people navigate today’s onlife world. We have also worked with sporting organizations to develop comprehensive social media policies that establish clear expectations and boundaries for coaches, staff, volunteers, athletes, and parents when it comes their use of social media. Whether you are looking to provide proactive education for your athletes or develop policies that help protect both your members and your organization, we would welcome the opportunity to work with you anywhere from across North America. Reach out to us to learn how we can help your club create a safer, more informed, and responsible digital sporting environment.
References
