The unauthorized publication of private photographs has become one of the most pervasive privacy violations in the digital age. From revenge porn to hacked celebrity iCloud accounts to stolen intimate images posted on aggregator sites, individuals whose private photographs are published without consent face legal remedies across multiple bodies of law—copyright, privacy torts, and an expanding array of state criminal statutes. Understanding which legal tools are available and how they interact is essential for anyone seeking to address this harm.
Copyright subsists in a photograph from the moment it is created, vesting in the author—the person who takes the picture. If you took the photograph yourself, you own the copyright. If someone else took the photograph of you, you do not automatically own the copyright, though you may have a claim for misuse of your image under right of publicity or privacy tort theories.
Where the plaintiff owns the copyright, unauthorized publication of the photograph is copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 106. Available remedies include:
Copyright infringement claims can be particularly powerful tools for removing intimate photographs from websites because the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown procedure creates a quick mechanism for removal. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512, a hosting platform that receives a valid DMCA takedown notice must remove the material expeditiously to maintain its safe harbor protection.
Even where copyright ownership is absent or disputed, privacy law may provide relief. The publication of embarrassing or private photographs may constitute public disclosure of private facts if the content was not generally known, the publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and the information is not of legitimate public concern. Courts have found this tort applicable to the publication of intimate photographs in a variety of contexts.
If the photographs were obtained through an unauthorized intrusion—hacking, covert recording, accessing a private device without permission—the intrusion itself may be actionable under intrusion upon seclusion, as well as federal computer access statutes including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030).
As of 2024, the majority of states have enacted specific statutes criminalizing the nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images, commonly referred to as revenge porn laws. Many of these statutes also create civil causes of action with fee-shifting provisions, making it economically viable for plaintiffs to pursue claims even when damages are difficult to quantify.
In Michigan, for example, MCL § 750.145e criminalizes the intentional disclosure of sexually explicit images of another person without consent and with the intent to harm the person. Similar statutes exist in California, New York, Texas, Illinois, and most other states.
Major social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Reddit have policies against nonconsensual intimate imagery and provide reporting mechanisms for removal. While platform-based removal is typically faster than litigation, it is not always reliable—content may be re-uploaded, mirrored on other sites, or cached in search engines.
A comprehensive legal strategy often combines immediate platform reporting with DMCA takedown notices, search engine de-indexing requests, and, where appropriate, legal action against the poster.
Revision Legal’s internet attorneys have experience removing private photographs from websites, pursuing copyright infringement claims, and advising on the full range of legal options available to individuals whose intimate images have been distributed without consent. Contact us today to discuss how we can help.
Platform-based removal is often the fastest first step for victims of nonconsensual photograph publication. Major platforms have established policies against nonconsensual intimate imagery and have built reporting mechanisms for flagging and removing violating content. Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok all have specific reporting categories for intimate image abuse. Google Search has a removal policy that allows individuals to request de-indexing of non-consensual intimate images.
These platform policies are imperfect enforcement tools. Content can be re-uploaded after removal, shared to other platforms, cached by archive services, and indexed by search engines before removal can be effectuated. A comprehensive response to nonconsensual image publication typically requires multiple simultaneous actions across platforms, combined with legal enforcement to address the source.
For photographs in which the victim owns the copyright, the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown procedure under 17 U.S.C. § 512 provides a faster and more legally powerful removal mechanism than most platform reporting processes. A valid DMCA takedown notice requires the hosting platform to remove the content expeditiously or risk losing its safe harbor from copyright liability. Platforms that receive DMCA notices have strong economic incentives to comply promptly.
The DMCA notice must meet specific requirements: it must identify the copyrighted work, identify the infringing material and its location, include a good-faith belief statement, include an accuracy statement, and be signed by the copyright owner or authorized agent. A defective notice can be rejected by the platform. Revision Legal’s attorneys draft legally sufficient DMCA notices and follow up with platforms that do not comply.
A particularly difficult situation arises when the person who took the intimate photograph—and therefore owns the copyright—is the same person who published it without the subject’s consent. In this scenario, the victim does not own the copyright and cannot use the DMCA directly. The legal theory shifts to privacy torts (intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts), state revenge porn statutes, and the federal SHIELD Act.
Some jurisdictions have addressed this through right of publicity theories, arguing that the unauthorized commercial use of the victim’s image for the benefit of a revenge porn website constitutes a violation of the victim’s right of publicity. This theory has had mixed results in courts but can be effective in states with strong right of publicity statutes.
In severe cases, particularly where the content is being actively distributed across multiple platforms or where the poster has a history of harassment, emergency injunctive relief may be available. A temporary restraining order can prohibit the defendant from further distributing the images while the case proceeds. Obtaining a TRO requires showing likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a balance of equities in the plaintiff’s favor, and that the public interest is served by the relief.
Courts have recognized that nonconsensual publication of intimate images causes irreparable harm that money damages cannot fully remediate, making the harm element easier to establish than in many other injunctive relief contexts.
Contact Revision Legal immediately if your private photographs have been published without your consent. The speed of your response can significantly affect how widely the content spreads.
Hitpiece.com scraped artists’ music and created NFTs without permission. Here’s how the copyright infringement dispute unfolded and what it means for NFT platforms.
Read more about Hitpiece.com and Copyright Infringement
Cybersquatting involves registering domain names in bad faith to profit from others’ trademarks. Here’s an overview of the ACPA and how it protects trademark owners.
Read more about An Overview of Cybersquatting Laws
Copyright infringement fraud involves filing false DMCA notices or misrepresenting ownership to profit illegally. Here’s how these schemes work and how to fight back.
Read more about Copyright Infringement Fraud: A Serious Problem