How to report non-consensual imagery for removal from google.com
google.com runs a removal route for intimate personal imagery that is separate from the copyright route and does not require owning the material. That distinction matters: someone whose photographs were taken by another person cannot file a copyright request, and can file this one.
Left up, 90 exposed copies work out to an estimated $526 a month in diverted subscriptions. Estimate, not a measurement: it assumes 0.45 diverted subscribers per exposed post at an average subscription price of $12.99. Your number depends on your pricing and audience.
Removal route for google.com
Resolved live · no account · nothing uploaded
google.com is an index, not a host. Delisting is the whole route.
1 · Curated host route— silent.No host_handlers row for google.com.
2 · RDAP abuse contact— silent.rdap.org returns no RDAP service for the .com registry. Probed 2026-09-04.
3 · Fallback address— resolves.abuse@google.com — the address the resolver falls back to. It may not be monitored.
4 · Network and search— resolves.Delisting is the route here — the index holds the result, not the file.
What happens to what you type: nothing. The domain is matched against openDMCA's routing table in your browser. No request is made to google.com, no page is fetched, and the text is not stored or sent anywhere.
Use the personal-imagery route, not the copyright one. Where intimate material was published without consent, the personal-imagery removal request on google.com applies. Filing it as a copyright request instead is the most common reason a case is refused.
Collect the URLs before you file. Record each google.com result you want removed, with the date. A request acts on identified URLs, and a description of the problem without them cannot be processed.
Cover web results and image results. Web and image results on google.com are separate indexes with separate queues. A request against one leaves the other returning, and image results are usually what match a name.
File the copyright route as well where it applies. If you made the material, both routes are available and they reach different processes. Using one does not exclude the other, and neither costs anything to file.
Ask for support rather than doing this alone. Organisations exist specifically to help people whose intimate images were published without consent, at no charge. Using them is not a lesser route than paying a service.
Which google.com route fits a non-consensual case
The copyright route asks who owns a work. The personal-imagery route asks whether the person depicted consented to publication. Those are different tests, and a case that fails the first can pass the second — most obviously when someone else took the photographs.
openDMCA builds and files delisting requests through whichever route applies, and verifies them afterwards rather than assuming. It does not submit to hash-matching networks, because that capability is gated on a credential that is not enabled, and a claimed route a creator cannot use is worse than an honest gap.
openDMCA gives the first two hops away: you can open choose between the two routes and run it on a URL of your own, with no account and nothing uploaded.
One thing that catches people out on google.com
The personal-imagery removal route on google.com works without owning the copyright, which makes it the only search-engine route available to a creator whose intimate images were recorded by someone else. A takedown service built entirely on copyright notices cannot file for that person at all, and saying so is more useful than implying otherwise.
Frequently asked questions
I did not take the photos. Can I still request removal?
Yes. The personal-imagery route depends on consent rather than ownership, which is the situation where a copyright request would fail.
Does removal from google.com delete the page?
No. Delisting changes what the search engine returns. The page stays where it is until the host route produces a removal, which runs separately.
Does this cost anything?
No. Removal requests to search engines are free to file. openDMCA states that rather than routing an urgent case through a checkout first.
Is this legal advice?
No. This describes routes that exist and how they differ. For advice about your own circumstances, speak to a lawyer or a support organisation working on non-consensual imagery.
Work out whether the copyright route or the NCII route fits — free, no account.