BranditScan
Best for: Names AI detection, but not deepfakes. "Facial Recognition & AI Detection" is listed on the $69 Premium tier. What it detects is not described, and detecting a face is not the same as identifying synthetic media.
Pricing reality: Premium: $69/mo for 3 stagenames. Premium (annual): $690/yr for 3 stagenames. White Glove: $149/mo for Unlimited stagenames. White Glove (annual): $1490/yr for Unlimited stagenames.
What it does better: Three stage names are included in the $69/mo entry plan, where a per-username competitor would charge for each.
What makes people leave: On deepfakes specifically: BranditScan publishes no detection or removal product for synthetic media on the pages checked here, so anything you are told verbally about deepfake coverage is not something you can hold them to. branditscan.com on BranditScan
Verdict: No published deepfake product. Judge on the rest of the sheet and use the platform routes below for the synthetic media itself.
Rulta
Best for: Impersonation and image search, no deepfake product. Rulta publishes reverse image search on Legend and runs a catfishing and impersonation service. Neither is a deepfake product and Rulta does not describe one.
Pricing reality: Pro: $139/mo for 1 username. Premier: $184/mo for 2 usernames. Legend: $324/mo for 4 usernames.
What it does better: Rulta states it is "Google's Trusted Copyright Partner" and cites Google's public Transparency Report for a claimed 200,000,000+ links reported.
What makes people leave: On deepfakes specifically: Rulta publishes no detection or removal product for synthetic media on the pages checked here, so anything you are told verbally about deepfake coverage is not something you can hold them to. rulta.com on Rulta
Verdict: No published deepfake product. Judge on the rest of the sheet and use the platform routes below for the synthetic media itself.
Bruqi
Best for: Impersonator coverage from $99, nothing on synthetic media. Creator Pro names impersonators among its surfaces. The pricing page says nothing about deepfakes or AI-generated content at any tier.
Pricing reality: DIY: $0/mo for Manual removals only. Side Hustle: $29/mo for All usernames. Creator Pro: $99/mo for All usernames. Top 1%: $249/mo for All usernames.
What it does better: Every paid tier covers all usernames at one price, starting at $29/mo — the flattest pricing model of the five competitors compared here.
What makes people leave: On deepfakes specifically: Bruqi publishes no detection or removal product for synthetic media on the pages checked here, so anything you are told verbally about deepfake coverage is not something you can hold them to. bruqi.com on Bruqi
Verdict: No published deepfake product. Judge on the rest of the sheet and use the platform routes below for the synthetic media itself.
Ceartas
Best for: Nothing published. The pricing page publishes tiers and manual-request caps and describes no detection capability of any kind.
Pricing reality: Star: $69/mo for 1 creator. Elite: $169/mo for 1 creator. VIP: $349/mo for 1 creator. Platinum: $1200/mo for 1 creator.
What it does better: A published price ladder that reaches genuinely high-touch service, which most of the category does not publish at all.
What makes people leave: On deepfakes specifically: Ceartas publishes no detection or removal product for synthetic media on the pages checked here, so anything you are told verbally about deepfake coverage is not something you can hold them to. ceartas.io on Ceartas
Verdict: No published deepfake product. Judge on the rest of the sheet and use the platform routes below for the synthetic media itself.
Privly
Best for: Nothing published. The flat $49 plan states all platforms and all content, which is not a claim about synthetic media in either direction.
Pricing reality: Free Trial: $0/mo for 7 days, 1 scan, up to 3 uploads. Creator Protection: $49/mo for All platforms, all content. Platform Offboarding: $499 one-time for Concierge, 12 months of cover. Copyright Registration: $299 one-time for Optional add-on.
What it does better: The flattest published price in this comparison for a full-service plan: $49/mo, in Privly's words "Same plan, every feature, no per-username surcharge, no hidden tiers".
What makes people leave: On deepfakes specifically: Privly publishes no detection or removal product for synthetic media on the pages checked here, so anything you are told verbally about deepfake coverage is not something you can hold them to. useprivly.com on Privly
Verdict: No published deepfake product. Judge on the rest of the sheet and use the platform routes below for the synthetic media itself.
The objections worth taking seriously
- Is this a scam, like half the category?
- Fair question, and the honest answer is that openDMCA cannot prove it with a testimonial. What it can do is publish the instrument: a notice under 17 U.S.C. §512 is the same one studios file, openDMCA acts as your authorised agent, and the policy that binds openDMCA to that role is public. Read the openDMCA DMCA policy, including the counter-notice route
- Will filing put my legal name in front of the people who leaked me?
- A valid notice has to identify a complainant, and openDMCA is the named agent on it rather than your home address. Nothing about your identity handling is left to a promise — the security page describes what openDMCA stores about you and where it goes. How openDMCA handles creator identity and account data
- Do I have to upload my leaked content to your servers?
- No. A openDMCA scan takes a username, not a file. Reference images are optional and only used if you choose face or image matching, and the privacy policy states plainly what is stored and for how long. What openDMCA stores, and what it never asks you for
The routes that actually exist, in the order to try them
None of this is legal advice, and deepfake removal can involve rights that a takedown service cannot act on at all. What follows is the practical sequence, and the first two steps are free.
First, work out which instrument applies. A copyright notice removes material you own the copyright in. If a deepfake was built by pasting your face onto someone else's video, you may not own the underlying footage, and a DMCA notice may have no basis. If it used your own published photos or video as source material, a copyright route may exist for those elements. The free DMCA or NCII decision tree walks that fork without asking for anything.
Second, use the platform's non-consensual imagery process. Every major platform publishes one, it is separate from copyright, and it does not depend on who owns the footage — which is exactly why it works in cases where a notice does not. It is also free and usually faster than a commercial route.
Third, go after the search path. Even where the host will not act, search de-listing is a separate route with its own outcome. Most people find a deepfake through a search result rather than by browsing the site hosting it, so removing the search path cuts reach materially even while the file remains. The free de-listing request builder produces the submission text.
Fourth, document before anything comes down. URLs, timestamps and screenshots, captured before a removal succeeds. Once material is gone it is much harder to evidence that it existed, and evidence is what any later step depends on.
What to ask a vendor selling deepfake coverage. What does the detection match on. Does the workflow use the copyright route or the non-consensual imagery route, and who decides which. What happens when a host refuses. A vendor who answers all three has thought about it; a vendor who answers with a feature name has not.
What openDMCA does and does not do here, stated plainly
openDMCA does not offer deepfake detection. The AI-likelihood scoring in its codebase depends on a worker service that is not enabled in production, which makes it a capability openDMCA has written and does not run. Selling it, or describing it as available, would be the exact thing this whole comparison layer exists to avoid.
What openDMCA does do is route. openDMCA routes every infringing URL through the Removal Graph — a live map of which hosts actually remove content, how fast, and through which channel — so each takedown takes the shortest path that has historically worked for that host. If a synthetic image of you sits on a host with a published abuse route, that URL is handled like any other: host notice, escalation, provider or CDN, then search de-listing, with a host below a 25% removal rate over ninety days across at least five resolved samples fast-pathed to the last rung. Perceptual hashing against reference images you choose to provide will find re-uploads of a specific image once you have one.
That is a partial answer to a deepfake problem and it should be read as one. The detection question — is this synthetic, and is it me — openDMCA does not answer today.
Why this page has no recommendation. Every service in the comparison table publishes prices, surfaces and review histories, and none of them publishes a deepfake product. Ranking them on a capability nobody advertises would be inventing a distinction to fill a page. The comparison table is here because the rest of the sheet still matters if you are buying anyway, and the routes above are here because they are what actually works.
The estimate below assumes 60 live copies, a smaller count than a leaked-set page because synthetic material typically propagates across fewer hosts before search picks it up.