A photographer is warning parents who use artificial intelligence to take the watermark off school pictures about the dangers of how companies can use images of their children.

Ian Gilbert, founder of Emotion Picture Photography, said he had heard parents boasting at the school gates about how they use the tool to avoid paying for photos.

"The scary thing is when you submit a picture to AI by default it is allowed to do whatever it wants and I don't think a lot of parents realise that," he said.

An AI safety expert said he understood why people did it, and that it may seem harmless, but uploading any identifiable information, including photographs, was "not worth the risk".

Gilbert, from Pontypool, Torfaen, urged parents to think carefully before uploading their child's photograph to an AI tool.

Annual school photographs are a rite of passage but, with technology now able to remove watermarks from preview images in seconds, some parents are bypassing the payment process altogether.

"It is theft, it is shoplifting," said 47-year-old Gilbert. "People wouldn't go into a shop and take a tag off something and take it without paying. "It's as though because it's something you can do online at home, it seems to numb it in people's eyes."

Gilbert said other photographers were increasingly seeing the same behaviour from parents. He noticed that about 25% of images sent out were being screenshot to be used in AI tools as he is notified when it happens.

"That's a quarter of parents not paying. A quarter of profit lost for us. Also the school get a cut from the revenue as well, so it's a loss for the school." The photographer said he had noticed a drop in profits in the past 12 months.

He said he heard parents at the school gates talking using AI to avoid paying after he had been inside taking photos. "They were referring to my own photos that I took at the school.

"One said 'Are you going to buy the pics?' And the other said 'I'm just going to get AI to remove the watermark off and it only costs me a pound'." He said all people had to do was claim they were the owner of the image in order for the watermark to be removed.

Gilbert told BBC Radio Wales Breakfast that he wanted his photos to be affordable so charged from £9.

"For the sake of a couple of pounds with AI you're getting such a lower-quality product and ultimately it just makes us have to put prices up again, which is unfair for everyone," he said.

"You are constantly fighting and chasing your tail." He added that the company he worked with was working to implement "high-tech methods to beat AI" including putting moving images over photos so they cannot be copied.

Dr Simon Thorne, a senior computer science lecturer at Cardiff School of Technologies, urged people, as a general rule, to "never upload any personable identifiable photos". "It's a terrible idea. It's a big risk," he said.

"The dataset could get leaked online potentially and your material can be used to train future generations of the model. The image could be sold - you have no idea.

"Depending on the service, you may have very little idea how long that image is retained, how it is processed or whether it is reused." Thorne said if the photograph contained other children, it raises an additional issue because their parents may have no idea that an image of their child has been uploaded to an AI system.

"We recently had a case where a child was ill and missed a school photograph, so a parent used AI to add them back into the picture afterwards," he said.

"I can understand entirely why they did that, but they did not seem to appreciate that uploading and manipulating images of children in this way can carry real privacy and safeguarding risks." Theft aside, Gilbert said this method also gave people a low-quality photo.

"Our work is not just a quick shot - we have really beautiful set ups and spend a lot of time and money creating images.

"Across the board it's getting worse and worse and if it gets to the point where it's not profitable for us, I may have to stop my service."

"It's a huge issue, but I don't know how we would attack it. How would you make ChapGPT aware and hold them to account? It feels like a David and Goliath situation." He added that the Guild of Photographers was looking at how they can bring prosecutions to people using such services and not paying.

Victoria Welton, a photographer based in Crewkerne, works across 15 schools and nurseries in Somerset.

She also said many parents were using AI to take the watermark off pictures so they could access them for free.

She added they were stealing photographers' livelihoods as well as possibly putting children at risk.

"To put your child's photograph through AI makes my blood boil. AI is a system we know nothing about. We don't know where the photo is going," she said.

Tessa Chapman, a photographer based in south Somerset, said parents removing watermarks were costing her a "huge amount of money". She said: "It's illegal.

It's our livelihoods. I think a lot of parents don't realise that. "School photography is very historical.

For some parents it's absolutely huge. "What I noticed over the years is, often in lower socio-economic areas, this might be the only professional image that a family can afford of their child.

"I'm just trying to run a business. I have to have faith in people's honesty." Dylan Evans, a 21-year-old sports photographer, had only been shooting for a few weeks when he noticed that people were using AI to remove his watermark from photos. "It was just gutting.

I only charge £2 a picture. I put all these hours in taking the photos and then I'm up until two o'clock in the morning editing all these photos, and I have a full-time job too." Two years ago Evans, from Caersw, Powys, asked for a camera for Christmas and got in touch with his local football club about taking photos. "It just started from there really.

I went down most Saturdays and Sundays, taking photos of the players and then branched out to other clubs as well." Evans said he once sent a club an album of photos he took for the game he had been booked for, only to see a player's Instagram account a few hours later with one of his pictures with the watermark removed.

"I wasn't paid and they were just posting them. I am putting all this time and effort in and then that's what you get," he said.

"I have seen people use it for profile pictures and getting rid of the watermark and the quality is bad. "I pride myself on high-quality photos and to see something that's bad quality, and the photos can be traced back to me.

It's not a good look." After posting about his experience online, Evans said he got an "unbelievable" reaction. "I have also had local clubs reach out and got bookings since posting. I've also had people who have said they have had similar experiences but to power through." Evans is also worried about the development of AI and thinks the future is "very scary" for people in his line of work.

"It's only £2 a photo and people are already stealing and, with AI getting better, it may be harder to see the imperfections," he said.

Thorne added that the behaviour pointed to "a much wider problem around AI literacy", adding there was an urgent need for better education about what happens when people upload personal material to AI systems.

Matthew Sammon, a chartered trademark attorney at Sonder & Clay, said copyright belonged to the person who took the photo. He added that Gilbert was right to say what was going on was theft.

"Photographers use a watermark to protect the image from being copied, if that is removed that is copyright infringement," he said.

He said the owner of the image was entitled to bring legal action, including an injunction to stop any further use of the image, damages for lost income and cover of their legal costs.

But, he added, "one of the difficulties for school photographers is the cost of legal action is expensive".

"In many respects they are reliant on the honesty of their customers, so if they had to launch proceedings they would spend time and effort on that rather than getting on with their job."