Reporting non-consensual imagery: what one audit found
Research comparing reporting mechanisms for non-consensual intimate imagery on one major platform found that the copyright infringement route was faster than the dedicated non-consensual nudity route.
What the audit measured
Victims of non-consensual intimate imagery currently have two mechanisms available for reporting such content: as a non-consensual nudity violation, or as copyright infringement [1]. A 2024 audit study examined how fast each route resulted in removal on X, formerly Twitter [1].
The researchers uploaded 50 AI-generated nude images, reporting half under the non-consensual nudity mechanism and half under the copyright infringement mechanism [1]. By holding the content constant and varying only the reporting route, the study design isolated the effect of the mechanism itself rather than any property of the images [1].
What the audit found
The copyright infringement mechanism was faster than the dedicated non-consensual nudity mechanism [1]. This finding is specific to the routing difference; it does not measure the absolute speed of removal on X or compare X to other platforms.
Scope limits of the audit
The study used AI-generated images rather than real victims' images [1]. This means the audit measures how the reporting mechanisms performed on synthetic content, not on actual intimate imagery of real people. The scope is further limited to one platform and one point in time.
The findings do not extend to other platforms or other reporting mechanisms beyond these two. They do not measure whether either mechanism reliably removes content in all cases, or how quickly real victims' content is addressed.
Broader context on platform reporting
Non-consensual intimate imagery, also known as image-based sexual abuse, is mediated through online platforms [2]. Platforms function simultaneously as the crime scene, the judge determining whether material violates policy, and the jury deciding on consequences for perpetrators [2].
Research drawing on interviews with 13 victim-survivors described the reporting experience as fragmented and opaque [2]. Because this is a qualitative study of 13 participants, it documents the types of challenges survivors encountered rather than producing estimates of how common each experience is [2].
Reporting volume indicates how many reports a scheme receives, not whether removal succeeded, not how widespread the harm is, and not whether an increase in reports reflects growth in the harm or in awareness and willingness to report.
Practical implications for someone reporting intimate imagery
If you have non-consensual intimate imagery removed from X, the audit findings suggest that filing a copyright infringement report may be faster than using the dedicated non-consensual nudity route. This is a structural finding about that platform's systems, not a guarantee of removal speed or success.
The copyright route may not be available for all content; for instance, it typically requires you to hold copyright to the image. The non-consensual nudity mechanism exists for cases where copyright protection does not apply. Neither mechanism is a substitute for other legal remedies, reporting to law enforcement, or legal advice tailored to your jurisdiction.
- What the TAKE IT DOWN Act actually changes, and what it doesn't , the US statutory route, and the 48-hour duty a platform now owes you
- Deepfakes are reshaping workplace sexual harassment , the same imagery when it follows someone to work
Sources
- [1]Qiwei, L., Zhang, S., Kasper, A. T., Ashkinaze, J., Eaton, A. A., Schoenebeck, S., Gilbert, E. Reporting Non-Consensual Intimate Media: An Audit Study of Deepfakes. arXiv:2409.12138.
- [2]Qiwei, L., Kennon, K., Bedera, N., Eaton, A. A., Gilbert, E., Schoenebeck, S. Platforms as Crime Scene, Judge, and Jury: How Victim-Survivors of Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery Report Abuse Online. arXiv:2512.13500.
- [3]Burton, M., Minihan, S., Nicholas, M., Connor, J., Trengove, K. Regulating Image-Based Abuse: An Examination of Australia's Reporting and Removal Scheme. Journal of Online Trust and Safety, 28 April 2025.
Common questions on this topic
What does the audit tell me about reporting on platforms other than X?
The audit study tested reporting mechanisms only on X, formerly Twitter [1]. It does not measure how reporting works on other platforms. Each platform has its own systems, policies and speed of response, so you would need separate research on those specific platforms to know how their mechanisms perform.
Does the audit measure how quickly real victims' images are removed?
No. The audit used AI-generated images rather than real victims' intimate imagery [1]. It measures the performance of reporting mechanisms on synthetic content. Real victims' images may be handled differently by platform systems, so the speed findings may not apply to actual cases of non-consensual intimate imagery.
What does it mean that copyright infringement was faster than non-consensual nudity reporting?
On X, reports filed under the copyright infringement mechanism resulted in faster removal than reports filed under the dedicated non-consensual nudity violation mechanism [1]. This suggests that if both mechanisms are available to you for a given image, the copyright route may be faster on that platform. It does not mean both mechanisms work equally well for all content.
Is there one best way to report non-consensual intimate imagery to platforms?
The audit compared two mechanisms on one platform and found the copyright route was faster [1]. Whether this applies to your situation depends on which platform hosts the content, whether you hold copyright to the image, and what other options are available. There is no universal best route across all platforms and all cases.