ONLYFANS

REMOVE YOUR ONLYFANS LEAKEDS CONTENT

There has been a very sharp rise in self-published adult content over the last decade, driven in large part by the launch and success of OnlyFans and rival entrants  to the market such as Fansly, JustForFans, and ManyVids (there are dozens of others).  References in the article to OnlyFans apply equally to all similar websites.

The benefits to either full-time or part-time models/performers (‘creators’) over traditional pornography work are now well-known: they get control over the type of content they perform, the co-stars they perform with, and do not have to fear that turning down work will lead to them being overlooked in future.  They also get to avoid the parts of the adult industry that have gained a reputation for exploitation and sexual offences.  The financial rewards are also potentially greater, with creators able to retain a greater proportion of revenue.  Finally, the set up allows for flexible hours and home-working, although, controversially, this has reportedly led to a large increase in students and those suffering from the cost of living dipping their toes into the adult entertainment market.

Self-publishing adult content does not come without its own difficulties.  Large, mainstream adult production companies are no different to television or film production companies: they do the behind-the-scenes work that monetises the production, including policing distribution and intellectual property infringements. With ‘OnlyFans leaks’ themselves becoming a major (unlawful) industry, creators need to become more aware of their rights and how to enforce them.

There are, broadly, two reasons that creators will want to stop leaks: (i) reputational and (ii) financial.

• Reputational concerns arise where the leaks have a significantly wider reach than the original content, or include personal data making a mostly anonymous creator identifiable. Being ‘outed’ in this way can have serious repercussions in the creator’s personal and professional life.
• The main financial concerns are typically that subscribers will not need to continue to subscribe to consume the creator’s content if it is available for free elsewhere. This will reduce the overall appeal of the creator’s content, reducing subscriber numbers and therefore income.

 Traditional takedown requests

Website operators

Historically, most ‘mainstream’ pornographic websites (many of the largest sites are owned by a handful of companies) have been receptive to takedown requests.  The problem is that intimate images/videos can sometimes proliferate at an alarming rate, with third party websites ‘scraping’ other sites for images and videos to upload to their own platform.   Many of these websites are hosted in far-flung jurisdictions, out of reach of legal process, by shadowy individuals or companies that are not easily identifiable.  They make unattractive targets for litigation given the prospects of any meaningful commercial recovery and compliance with court orders are so low.  As a result, they often have a sense of untouchability, and many do not accede to takedown requests.

Hosts

Hosts of websites can, in most jurisdictions, be liable for copyright infringement.  If the leak website is based in the US, copyright takedown notices can be highly effective (such is the fear of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA)).  Such notices can be less effective elsewhere.

The practical alternative

Since removing content itself can be impractical, difficult, and potentially impossible, hiding it from an overwhelming majority of internet users can be a sensible and viable alternative.

Google’s intimate images hub

Late last year Google launched a new hub designed to deal with intimate images and adult content in its search results.  It is aimed at removing personal content which:-

1. contains nudity or sexual material;
2. contains personal information;
3. is on a site with exploitative removal practices; or
4. shows a person under 18.

On the surface, this appeared to be aimed mostly at victims of image-based abuse/revenge porn, and it has been used extensively to help such victims.  However, the hub has a category specifically for self-published adult content creators to have links to leak websites removed from search engine results.  Google still seems to require legally meritorious explanations as to why the images should be removed, but we have had considerable success for clients in having leaked OnlyFans images removed from search results for their stage names and their real names (where the leaker had linked the two in his publications).

This does not remove the images from the internet.  Someone using a different search engine would still find the leaks, but with Google estimated to have a 93-94% share of the search engine market, this is often considered to be sufficient for most people’s purposes.  Certainly, if the reason for wanting the leaks removed is purely financial, this option can be much less costly and much more effective one than sending a number of copyright infringement takedown requests to various platforms.