Images have always been part of school life. Taking a photo of a presentation, documenting a project, or publicizing an academic achievement never seemed, at first glance, to be a complex legal decision. But the landscape has changed, and the photograph that used to hang on the school bulletin board now circulates on social media, is incorporated into enrollment campaigns, forms part of institutional reports, appears in sponsored ads, and may remain available indefinitely on the internet. It is at this point that the use of images ceases to be a simple administrative gesture and becomes a decision that requires care and legal planning.

The Federal Constitution protects one’s image as a fundamental right ( Art. 5, X), and when it comes to children and adolescents, this protection is even stronger, as the Statute of the Child and Adolescent enshrines absolute priority and the principle of the best interests of the child. With Law No. 15,211/2025, the Digital ECA, this logic is explicitly extended to the online environment, requiring that decisions involving digital exposure be made based on criteria of prevention, proportionality, and structured accountability.

Added to this is Law No. 13,709/2018 (LGPD), which considers images to be personal data and imposes principles such as specific purpose, appropriateness, and necessity; and, in the case of children, Article 14 requires that their best interests be taken into account. This means that generic, open-ended authorizations—valid for an indefinite period and for any purpose—tend to create legal vulnerabilities, especially when the exposure extends beyond the educational setting and enters the promotional realm.

In the school context, legal certainty does not lie in the mere existence of an authorization, but in its quality. Broad authorizations for “institutional use” prove insufficient when they do not precisely define the purpose (educational, informational, or promotional), the distribution channels, the possibility of promotion, the duration of use, the context, and any potential ramifications, and this level of detail is not excessive formalism but a preventive measure; that is, the more specific the framework for use, the less room there is for interpretive conflict and the greater the consistency with the principles of purpose, appropriateness, and necessity set forth in the law.

See also:

• AI in Education: A Scientific Warning, an Ethical Appeal, and the Blind Spot Between the Digital ECA and Bill 2,338
• ECA Digital: Compliance Guide for Educational Institutions
• Neuroethics, neurorights, and digital citizenship: the next step in education

It is in this context that a recurring and legally relevant question arises: if the family grants the school permission to use their image, does that permission automatically extend to the hired photographer? Can the photographer retain the photos? Does the family need to grant permission to the photographer as well?

The answer requires distinguishing between different legal aspects. On the one hand, there is the student’s right to one’s image—a personality right represented by the student’s legal guardians—whose authorization must specify the purpose, context, and scope of use. On the other hand, there is the photographer’s copyright in the photographic work, protected by Law No. 9,610/98. The photographer is the author of the photograph and holds economic and moral rights over it; Article 49 stipulates that any transfer of rights must be express and interpreted narrowly. Therefore, the school must establish contractual terms with the photographer specifying how the images may be used, for how long, in which media, and under what restrictions.

The analysis, however, does not end with copyright, since by capturing and possibly storing identifiable images of students, the photographer also processes personal data. From the perspective of the LGPD, the photographer may act as a processor when processing data on behalf of the school, or—depending on the degree of autonomy—as a joint controller. Therefore, authorization from the family to the school is not sufficient; a clear contractual framework between the school and the photographer is essential, with clear and detailed definitions regarding the limits of use, confidentiality obligations, security standards, storage rules, and criteria for deleting the images.

The legally safest model is one in which the family authorizes the school within clear parameters, the school contracts the photographer with specific clauses regarding data processing and limits on use, and any use beyond the contracted purpose requires specific and express authorization from both the family and the school.

On this topic, it is worth noting that it is also recommended that schools adopt internal criteria of prudence in sharing images, prioritizing group photos over individual ones and avoiding unnecessary spotlighting, naming students, or associations that increase a student’s exposure. Advance planning, consistency between what is authorized and what is actually done, and careful judgment in selecting images reduce legal risk and preserve the student’s dignity and safety, especially given the growing risk of image manipulation by artificial intelligence tools.

This is not about making institutional communication more difficult, but about recognizing that, when children and adolescents are involved, the standard of care is higher; and while the school naturally cannot control all risks, it must organize the matters within its sphere of decision-making, with contractual arrangements being part of that responsibility.

The use of images in a school setting lies at the intersection of the Constitution, the Child and Adolescent Statute (ECA), the Digital ECA, the General Data Protection Law (LGPD), and the Copyright Law; and when this intersection is addressed with expertise and consistency, it protects the school, the family, the contracted professional, and, above all, the student.

About the author:

Share on social media: