From Taylor Swift to Sydney school scandals: when AI “nudify” abuse becomes a real criminal case in NSW
| | | |

From Taylor Swift to Sydney school scandals: when AI “nudify” abuse becomes a real criminal case in NSW

ByParramatta Criminal Lawyers

A year or two ago, a lot of people would have dismissed AI-generated nude images as some weird internet problem happening to celebrities overseas. Now it is much closer to home. Taylor Swift deepfakes helped push this issue into mainstream culture globally, but in NSW the law has moved because the harm is no longer abstract: eSafety says reports to its image-based abuse scheme rose by more than 960% from 2018-19 to 2022-23, driven largely by sexual extortion, which rose by 1,332.2%. More than 1 in 10 Australian adolescents have experienced sexual extortion, and 41.4% of those victims were extorted using digitally manipulated material.

What if someone made a fake sexual image of me? What if my son or daughter is being accused of creating one? What if this happened in a breakup, a school group chat, a workplace feud, or an online extortion attempt? In NSW, those situations can now lead to real police reports, real criminal charges, AVO issues, and bail problems. National Criminal Lawyers® is one of the leading firms in tackling this new legal frontier.

Why this is suddenly a NSW criminal-law issue

The NSW Government now states plainly that it is a crime to create, share, or threaten to share sexually explicit images, videos or audio of someone without consent, and that this includes content digitally altered or generated by AI to place a person in a sexual situation they were never in. The government says the strengthened law applies in NSW to conduct occurring on or after 16 February 2026.

That timing matters. So does the public context. Just days ago, media reports said a Central Coast private school was rocked by allegations that students had created and circulated AI-generated nude deepfakes of classmates, allegedly used for threats and blackmail. The details will have to be treated carefully because the incident involves minors, but the broader point is obvious: this is no longer just about celebrity humiliation or offshore websites. It is school-aged, local, and real.

Indeed, here at National Criminal Lawyers®, we have already touched upon this matter in a highly acclaimed internal article here: “Deepfake Pornography and Criminal Law: When AI Crosses the Line in NSW.”

What is the actual NSW offence wording and penalty?

The key starting point remains the intimate image offences in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Section 91P makes it an offence to intentionally record intimate image or audio material of another person without consent, knowing there was no consent or being reckless as to consent. The maximum penalty is 100 penalty units or 3 years’ imprisonment, or both. The related offences for distribution and threats carry the same maximum. The Judicial Commission’s materials note that ss 91P-91R were created to address the non-consensual recording, distribution, or threatened distribution of intimate images, and record the same 3-year maximum penalty.

The 2025 NSW reforms matter because they extended that regime to digitally generated deepfakes and intimate audio material. The NSW Government says the law now covers altered or AI-generated sexual content and makes clear that it is criminal regardless of how it was made. Parliament’s explanatory material says the reforms criminalise altering images or audio into intimate material, creating intimate image or audio material of a simulated person meant to represent a real person, and threatening to do so, each with a maximum penalty of 3 years’ imprisonment.

That means the reader does not need to think only in old “revenge porn” terms. In NSW now, the problem can be a fake image, a manipulated voice file, or a synthetic sexual clip designed to look real.

Why is this area more relevant than ever?

This topic is exactly the kind of thing people now recognise from celebrity culture, online bullying, breakups and school scandals. eSafety says sexual extortion and image-based abuse reporting has surged, and the scheme’s reporting/removal work has become a major channel for getting harmful content taken down. Between August 2018 and June 2023, eSafety issued 9,520 reports of user behaviour to online services and platforms and 1,961 removal requests, with all or some material removed in 89.9% of those requests.

The adolescent data is even more confronting. eSafety and the Australian Institute of Criminology found that more than 1 in 10 adolescents had experienced sexual extortion; 57.7% before age 16; and 64.6% were targeted by someone they met online and had never met in person. That makes this not just a sex-crime topic, but a youth-crime, school-discipline, cybercrime and parent-panic topic all at once.

How the law is actually applied in real life

This is where many readers need genuine help, not just legal definitions.

If an ex-partner creates a fake nude image and sends it to your family, that may engage intimate-image offences, stalking or intimidation, and possibly domestic violence law. If a student circulates AI nudes of a classmate in a group chat, police may be looking at intimate-image offences, threats, blackmail, child-abuse material questions, and whether a prosecution involving a person under 16 needs DPP approval. If someone uses fake sexual imagery to demand money, further images, or silence, that can quickly become sextortion or blackmail territory.

The Judicial Commission’s equality materials are especially useful here because they explicitly recognise technology-facilitated abuse, including cyber abuse, image-based abuse, sextortion and impersonation, and note that rectification orders are available under s 91S requiring offenders to take reasonable actions to remove, retract, recover, delete or destroy images. That is a very practical point for victims: the law is not only about punishment after the harm is done; it can also be about forcing steps to limit ongoing damage.

This is also where AVOs come in. If the conduct sits in a domestic or former-intimate-partner context, the same digital abuse can support an ADVO application or an allegation that there has been stalking, intimidation or coercive control. The Judicial Commission notes that the coercive control offence under s 54D involves a course of abusive behaviour including threats, intimidation, coercion or control against a current or former intimate partner. A fake sexual image campaign could easily become part of that broader allegation in the right factual setting.

What about children and teenagers?

This is one of the most important parts of the topic, and one reason it is so commercially and publicly important.

Parents often think: “They’re kids, surely police won’t treat this as criminal.” That is dangerous. Parliament’s explanatory note says that for the new deepfake-related offences, a prosecution of a person under 16 must not be commenced without the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That does not mean there can be no prosecution. It means the law recognises the seriousness of charging children, while still allowing it.

So if your child is involved, either as victim or accused, the issue is not something to leave to school discipline alone. It may involve police, device seizures, interview requests, applications for AVOs, and difficult questions about consent, identification, authorship, distribution and recklessness. And if police say there has been blackmail, sexual extortion, or child-exploitation content, the consequences can escalate fast.

What if it was “just a joke” or “never actually sent”?

Those are the kinds of lines people use before they understand the legislation.

Threatening to create or distribute this kind of material can itself be an offence. The old idea that the prosecution must show the image already existed is not safe. The explanatory materials say the reform covers threats to alter or create this kind of intimate material, and the existing NSW regime already criminalises threats relating to intimate images.

So the modern reality is harsher than many people realise: the fake can be criminal, the threat can be criminal, the sharing can be criminal, and the surrounding conduct can trigger AVOs, stalking allegations, blackmail accusations, and in some matters federal carriage-service offences as well. National Criminal Lawyers®’ existing deepfake article already makes this point well and should be internally linked where the blog discusses overlap with Commonwealth law and online sharing.

Other relevant articles

What should a reader do right now if this happens?

If you are the victim, preserve the evidence, stop the spread where possible, report to eSafety and police, and get advice early about AVOs and device evidence. If you are accused, do not assume this is just embarrassing rather than criminal. Do not start deleting devices, messaging witnesses, or trying to explain everything in panic. These are exactly the sorts of matters where an early, strategic defence can make a huge difference to whether the facts spiral into a much bigger brief.

Contact Us

If you are being investigated for deepfake abuse, image-based abuse, AI-generated intimate images, sextortion, or a related AVO, stalking, or blackmail allegation, do not treat it as “just online drama.” In NSW, these matters are now plainly criminal, and the consequences can be devastating for your reputation, your employment, your education and your future.

At National Criminal Lawyers®, we understand how fast technology-facilitated allegations can escalate. We can advise before interview, deal with digital-evidence issues, contest overcharging, respond to AVO overlap, and protect your position early.

Call us at 1800 CRIM LAW for a free consultation. Help us help you understand your situation and get you the best outcome possible.

Similar Posts