FantasyYour content was leaked. Here is the notice, and where it goes.
A takedown notice you can fill in and send in about ten minutes, the six things the law requires it to contain, the exact places to send it, and one consequence nobody warns creators about before they send their first one.
Short answer
Send a DMCA takedown notice to three places, in this order: Google, so the copy stops being findable; the site itself, at the abuse or DMCA address in its footer; and the hosting provider if the site ignores you. You do not need a lawyer, you do not need a registered copyright, and you do not need to pay anyone. The notice is six required elements long and the generator below writes it for you.
What nobody tells you first: your notice does not stay private. Google shares copies of qualifying copyright removal requests with Lumen, a public archive run by Harvard's Berkman Klein Center, which holds over 75 million of them. Google says personal information is often redacted, but you should send your first notice assuming it can be read. That single fact is the most common reason creators have someone else send them.
The honest version of what is achievable: you will not remove it from the internet permanently. Nobody can. What is actually controllable is how long each copy stays up and how easy it is to find, and that is worth a great deal. One creator has worked with us since November 2021 and nothing of hers is findable today. When something does appear, it is usually gone within minutes to a few hours, because somebody is watching for it, not because of any special legal power.
The first hour
Do these in order. The whole sequence takes about twenty minutes and it matters more than anything you do in week two.
- Screenshot everything before you send anything. The infringing page with the URL bar visible, the date, and the post itself. Pages disappear once notices land, and you may need to show what was there.
- Write down every URL. Not the site's home page, the exact page the content sits on. A notice that says "somewhere on this site" is not actionable and will be rejected.
- Find the other copies now, not later. Search your handle, your name, your page name and any recurring caption in quotes. Run a reverse image search on a non-explicit frame from the same set. Leaks travel in clusters and it is far faster to send one notice covering nine URLs than nine notices.
- Send to Google first. It is the fastest of the three, and most of the harm from a leak is people finding it rather than the file existing.
- Then the site, then the host. Details below.
- Then check your own access. If content appeared that was never posted publicly, this is not a scrape, it is an access problem: a shared password, a former manager still logged in, a synced cloud folder. That is a different and more urgent job than the takedown.
The notice
A takedown notice is not free-form. Section 512(c)(3) of the DMCA lists six things it must contain, and a notice missing any of them can be ignored without consequence. Fill in the fields and the text below rewrites itself. Nothing you type leaves your browser.
DMCA takedown notice, ready to send
Fill in the fields above and the notice appears here.
Sending this to a provider's designated DMCA agent, listed in their terms or footer, is what starts the clock. Sending it to a contact form usually is not.
The six elements, so you can check any notice including this one: a signature of the person authorized to act, identification of the copyrighted work, identification of the infringing material precisely enough to find it, your contact details, a statement of good faith belief that the use is not authorized, and a statement made under penalty of perjury that the information is accurate and that you are authorized to act for the owner.
Where to send it
Different targets do different jobs. Google stops it being found. The site or its host is what actually removes the file. Doing only one of the two is the most common mistake.
| Send to | What it actually does | Where |
|---|---|---|
| Google Search | Removes the page from search results. The file stays online, but almost nobody finds it. Google reports an average turnaround of about six hours on Search requests. | Google's legal removal form |
| The site itself | The only route that deletes the file. Look for a DMCA agent or abuse address in the footer or terms. Many leak sites do comply, because ignoring notices costs them their own safe harbor. | The site's terms or footer |
| The hosting provider | Where you go when the site ignores you. Hosts act on notices because their liability shield depends on it. Find the host with a whois or IP lookup on the domain. | The host's abuse address |
| Cloudflare | Only if the site sits behind it. Cloudflare does not host the content and cannot delete it, but it forwards your report to the operator and the real host, and gives the host the origin IP so they can find the file. | Cloudflare abuse reporting |
| Bing | Same effect as Google, smaller audience, worth the extra five minutes. | Microsoft's copyright form |
| The platform you publish on | OnlyFans and the other subscription platforms run their own copyright reporting and can help establish that you are the source. | Platform support |
| Reddit, X, Telegram | Their own report routes, which are usually faster than a formal notice. Non-consensual intimate imagery reports often move faster than copyright reports on these platforms, and both routes can be used. | In-app reporting |
Cloudflare will only process a report that contains everything section 512(c) requires, which is another reason to send the full notice rather than an email saying "this is my content, take it down".
The part nobody warns you about: your notice becomes public
Google shares a copy of qualifying copyright removal requests with Lumen, a public research archive operated by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard. It holds more than 75 million notices covering over 10 billion URLs and grows by roughly 200,000 notices a week. Anyone can search it.
Google states that personal information is often redacted. What is reliably public is the notice itself, including the list of infringing URLs. Two consequences follow, and both are worth knowing before you send rather than after:
- The name on the notice may be readable. If your legal name is not connected to your creator name anywhere else, a takedown notice is one of the few documents that can connect them.
- The URLs you report get published as a list. That is the uncomfortable side effect of a transparency archive: a public record of exactly where copies were. It is a real trade-off, not a reason to skip the notice, and the copies still come down.
The standard way around the first problem is to have someone else send it, someone authorized to act on your behalf. That can be a lawyer, a takedown service, or a management agency. Then the notice carries their name and their address, not yours. That is genuinely the single most useful thing an agency does on this front, and it is worth saying plainly that it is a clerical advantage rather than a legal superpower.
What does not work
We would rather write this than sell you something.
- Contacting the person who posted it. It tells them the account matters to you, and on the sites where this happens that is an incentive rather than a deterrent. Send the notice to the provider instead.
- Paying a monthly retainer for automated notices you could send yourself. A large part of this industry is selling exactly what is on this page as a subscription. If your leaks are a handful of URLs, you do not need it. If they are hundreds and recurring weekly, the monitoring is the thing you are paying for, not the notices, and you should ask any service you consider how many notices it sent last month and to which targets.
- Suing. You cannot file a federal infringement suit without a registered copyright, registration takes time, and against an anonymous account behind an offshore host, the cost and the odds do not work. The notice route exists precisely because the lawsuit route is impractical.
- Waiting to see if it spreads. The first hours are when a leak either dies or gets mirrored. Everything above is easier on day one than on day ten.
When you do not need anyone for this
If you have found five or ten URLs and this is the first time, do it yourself. The generator above and the table above it are the whole method, it costs nothing, and you will be finished this afternoon. Anyone charging you a monthly fee for that specific job is charging for an afternoon.
The point at which handing it over starts to make sense is not difficulty, it is recurrence. The work in content protection is not writing notices, it is noticing: running the searches every week, catching a new mirror on the day it appears rather than the month it appears, and sending under a name that is not yours. That is dull, constant, and exactly the kind of thing that quietly stops getting done when a creator is also shooting, posting and answering messages.
Our own record, stated as precisely as we can: one creator has worked with us since November 2021, and nothing of hers is findable online today. That is not a promise that leaks never happen, because they do, to everyone. It is a claim about how long they stay up, which is the only part anyone can actually control. We are not selling this as a standalone product, and if content protection is the only thing you want, an agency that specializes in it will serve you better than we will. We say the same on our comparison page against one.
Common questions
Do I need to register my copyright before sending a DMCA notice?
No. In the United States copyright exists the moment you create the work, and you can send a takedown notice without registering anything. Registration matters at the next stage: you generally cannot file an infringement lawsuit in federal court without it. For the takedown itself, the work being yours is enough.
How long does a takedown take?
Google reports an average of roughly six hours for Search removal requests submitted through its web form. Sites and hosts vary from hours to never. The pattern we see is that hosts respond more reliably than the sites themselves, because a host's legal protection depends on acting on notices, and a leak site's business model does not.
Will the person who posted it find out who I am?
Possibly. Providers commonly forward the notice to the account that posted the material, so that they can file a counter-notice, and Google shares qualifying copyright requests with the public Lumen archive. If that matters to you, have someone authorized to act on your behalf send it under their name and address instead. That is a normal, legitimate arrangement rather than a workaround.
Does a DMCA notice work against a site hosted outside the United States?
Often, yes, and for a practical reason rather than a legal one: a great many non-US sites depend on US infrastructure, US search traffic, and US payment processing, so they honor notices to keep it. Where the site itself refuses, the search removal still works, and that removes most of the traffic. Where neither works, the remaining route is the host, and if the host is also unreachable then the honest answer is that this particular copy may stay up.
What if the content was never public?
Then it is an access problem, not a scraping problem, and the takedown is the second job rather than the first. Change your password, turn on two-factor authentication, remove every device and third-party app connection you do not recognize, and work out who had access and when. If a current or former agency held your login, that is where to start, and it is the reason we argue creators should never hand over credentials at all.
Can I stop this happening again?
Not entirely, and anyone promising otherwise is selling something. What measurably reduces it: watermarking with something identifiable per subscriber, so a leak points at an account; not sending full sets to anyone who asks; keeping your own login rather than sharing it; and a weekly search for your own handle so you find copies rather than waiting for someone to tell you.
Sources and corrections
The statutory requirements above come from section 512 of Title 17 of the US Code, summarized by the US Copyright Office. The Lumen publication practice and the average Search turnaround come from Google's own copyright removal FAQ. Cloudflare's position on forwarding rather than removing comes from its published abuse approach. All three checked on 10 September 2026.
The claims about our own record are ours and are deliberately narrow: one creator since November 2021 with nothing findable today, and typical removal times of minutes to a few hours on the copies we catch. We do not publish a takedown count, because a number without an auditor is a number you should not believe from us any more than from anyone else.
If something on this page is wrong or out of date, email contact@fantasyrise.com. Corrections that change the substance are noted here with a date.