Old gay adult films of you still online: how our solicitors had them taken down from more than 35 websites

Case led by Yair Cohen, Solicitor specialising in internet law.

This case study is part of our pornography and adult content law section.

If you made gay adult films years ago on a promise that they would never go online, or would only be shown in a limited way, such as in high-end hotels, for private viewing or on DVD, and you now find them on site after site, the law can usually have them taken down, even though you agreed to the filming and were paid. That is what we did for Tom, as we will call him, a young gay man whose films had spread to more than 35 websites and whose work takes him to countries where being gay is a crime. Names and some details have been changed to protect our client; what happened, what we did and how it ended are as they were.

If you have only just found a film, start with the simple steps: the website's own removal or abuse form, and Google's request form for taking intimate content of you out of its results. Some sites act on that alone. When they ignore you, when you were promised the films would never be published, or when copies keep coming back, the route below is the one that worked for Tom. We act for clients in the UK and abroad, and everything can be handled remotely.

Gay adult films online years later: what happened to our client

Tom was in his early twenties when he made three films for a small production company. It was a difficult stretch of his life. Money was very short, he was caring for his widowed mother, and he was at a low point in himself. A modest fee for a few hours of filming felt like a way to keep things going.

Before he agreed, the producers told him two things that mattered more to him than the fee. He would stay anonymous, and the films would not be put online for the public to see. He agreed on that basis.

Years later, by then in his late twenties, Tom typed a few words into a search engine and found the films on free tube sites, blogs, file lockers and torrent indexes, under a name that was not his. Some sites had cut them into clips. Others offered them for download. Every time he looked, there seemed to be another copy.

His story is one we hear in different forms. Young men who made films in their twenties because money was tight, were told only a small paying audience would ever see them, and found them years later on free sites, long after they had moved on. Some were in even harder circumstances, such as the man filmed while he was homeless in the case of how we exposed the headteacher who ran a porn website. For Tom there was a further fear, and it shaped everything we did.

Why the films put him at risk when he travelled for work

Tom's job takes him abroad, sometimes for months, and some of the countries he works in treat sex between men as a crime. The UK government's foreign travel advice for LGBT+ people notes that around 70 countries criminalise consensual same-sex activity, and tells travellers to find out about local laws before they go. For most people an old film is a source of embarrassment. For Tom, a film that a colleague, a client or an official could find under a few search terms was a question of his safety.

He told us that during one long stay abroad he was afraid even to open the email account he used for his case. That is the reality behind a request that might look, from the outside, like tidying up the internet. It is also why time mattered: he had trips booked, and we worked to the dates he gave us.

It is why we work slightly differently to most law firms. Rather than sending sensitive matters by ordinary email, we keep in touch with our clients through encrypted communication. Clients like Tom can follow their case safely wherever they are in the world, and everything stays discreet.

For most people an old film is an embarrassment. For a gay man whose work takes him to countries where being gay is a crime, it is a question of safety.

A letter of claim to the production company over a broken promise of anonymity

We began with the company that made the films, because it held the rights and the original footage, and because it had made the promise. We took Tom's full account first, including what was said at the meetings before the filming, and gathered every link he had found.

Our letter of claim set out why the company was answerable to him. Putting the films out on the internet, against what Tom had been told, was a misuse of his private information. It broke the agreement he had made, because the promise of anonymity was part of the bargain. It breached his data protection rights, since footage of a person is his personal data. And the spread of the films was causing him the kind of distress the law of harassment recognises. We asked for the films to be taken down at source and for help with removing the copies.

The company instructed a large international law firm. Its answer was that it held footage of Tom saying, on camera, that he agreed to the films being published.

Why the producer's on-camera footage did not end the case

The footage did not mean what the producer said it meant. Whatever Tom said on camera, he said it on the strength of what he had been told before the filming: that his identity would be kept private and the films kept off the open internet. What he agreed to was limited distribution. Agreement to the use of a person's personal data has to be specific and informed, and a promise that persuades someone to sign up can have legal consequences when it turns out to be untrue. Having broken a major term of the arrangement, the producers could not lawfully rely on what Tom said on the day to put the films on the open internet.

Production companies sometimes do this. They film a performer saying that he agrees to everything, and then treat the footage as the end of any argument. So if a producer tells you nothing can be done, or you remember saying something on camera that seems to close the door, please do not give up. In our experience, the matter is far from over. Our guide to whether a release form signed for an adult film holds up explains how these documents are tested.

We put this to the producer's lawyers and kept pressing. In the end the producer agreed to take the films down at source and to hand Tom the rights in them. That was the starting point we needed, and everything that followed was built on it.

The exclusive copyright licence: the piece of copyright law that let our client take the films down himself

The offer of the copyright was attractive, because holding the rights is what lets a person order copies off other websites. It also raised another issue. Other performers appeared in the films, and in some of the footage, such as audition material. Handing Tom outright ownership would have given him control over film of other people, which the producer could not fairly do, and those performers have their own privacy to protect.

An exclusive licence solved it. It is less familiar than an outright transfer of copyright, and it can do almost the same job. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, an exclusive licence is one in writing, signed for the copyright owner, that shuts out everyone else, the owner included. Its holder then has the same rights and remedies against infringers as if the copyright had been transferred. The producer kept ownership, so the other performers stayed protected, and Tom held the exclusive right to act against anyone copying the films. In plain words, once he had signed the licence, Tom could tell any website copying the films to take them down, as the person entitled to say so.

The wording of the licence decided how useful it would be, so we went through the company's draft clause by clause. We asked for it to cover the whole world and not only the UK, because the copies sat on sites in many countries and Tom's fear lay abroad. We asked for him to be protected from paying the company's legal costs if it ever chose to sue someone itself. And we asked for the rights to be able to pass to someone he trusted if he were ever too ill to deal with them. The company also agreed that it could be named in our notices as supporting the removal, which gave every letter that followed more weight.

The negotiations were hard going, and at the end of them Tom had a licence he was satisfied with. A licence drafted loosely can leave its holder arguing with every website about what he owns; a licence drafted with removal in mind settles that argument before it starts. Our guide to using copyright to get videos of you taken down explains when this route is open to you.

Copyright notices to more than 35 websites, their hosts and Google

With the licence signed, we went after every copy we and Tom could find. The licence listed just over 20 websites. Tom searched again with the words he knew the films were posted under, our team searched separately, and the list grew. Each website received a copyright notice written for it, under the procedure that site said it followed, in many cases the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice procedure. We kept the notices polite and firm: here is the right, here is the film, please take it down.

The larger sites acted within days. Others needed more. A number of sites sat behind Cloudflare, which protects websites but does not host them; it passed our reports on and told us which company did host each site, and we wrote to that company too. Some sites gave contact addresses nobody read, so we went to the businesses that provided their servers, several of them in the Netherlands, and the hosts acted where the sites would not. One site replied to our notice with a two-word obscenity. We wrote to the company that hosts it, and within weeks the film was gone.

We left Google until last, on purpose. Tom wanted the leftover thumbnails out of the search results straight away, and it was natural to want that. But asking Google to delist results before the sources are down can remove the very signposts that lead to copies still to be found, and Tom agreed it was better to wait. Once the sites had removed the films, many results fell away as Google revisited the pages, and Google's own removal tools deal with what is left.

We updated Tom every time a site came down, with proof of the removal. In all, the films came off more than 35 websites and hundreds of web addresses were disabled.

One site replied to our copyright notice with a two-word obscenity. We wrote to the company that hosts it, and within weeks the film was gone.

When the films came back: tracing the source and searching again

The following year, a copy appeared on a new site, labelled as a fresh release. Tom's first fear was that the production company was still putting the films out. We wrote to each new site, asked where it had obtained the footage, and asked it to pass our notice on to its source. The copies came down.

To give Tom some certainty, we carried out regular searches for any copies of the films, including searches using stills from the films. By the end they turned up a single remaining address, one we were already dealing with. Copies of adult films can resurface, because once a file has been downloaded someone may post it again. The answer is to act quickly whenever a new copy appears, and for Tom we agreed fixed fees for each new batch of websites and a short monitoring arrangement, so he always knew the cost before we started.

Outcome: the films removed and our client free to travel

The production company took the films down at source and gave Tom exclusive control of them. We removed the copies we found on more than 35 websites, most of the search results that pointed to them went with them, and we took down the copies that came back later too. No court proceedings were needed.

When the first wave of removals came through, Tom wrote to us: "I feel one step closer to moving on with my life and being able to visit certain countries where being gay is a crime, so that is also a relief." Later, simply: "Forever grateful."

Advice if old gay adult films of you are online

Begin with a list. Every copy needs its web address, a screenshot with the date on it, and the search words that brought it up. Tom's own list, and the search terms he shared with us, found copies that a general search would have missed, and a removed page leaves no trace to point back to later.

Try the simple route first. Use each website's own removal form, and Google's form for personal sexual content. If you filmed the material yourself, the copyright is probably yours already and a takedown notice from you may be enough. If the sites ignore you, or the films keep coming back, that is the point to bring in lawyers.

Think back to what you were told before the filming. A promise that you would stay anonymous, or that the films would only be shown in a limited way, in high-end hotels, for private viewing or on DVD, can matter as much as anything you signed. Write down who said it, when and where, while you still remember.

Ask for the rights, as well as the removal. A producer who takes the films down from its own site has done part of the job; a producer who gives you the rights lets you clear the rest of the internet. If it will only grant a licence, an exclusive licence drafted with care can be enough. Our guide to old adult films of you still online years later sets out the other routes, including what happens when the company that made the films no longer exists, and our guide to getting sexual images and videos of you taken down covers the wider picture.

If you travel, or plan to live, somewhere being gay is against the law, tell your lawyer your dates. The order in which the sites are tackled can be planned around them, starting with the copies most easily found under your name.

Lawyers' thoughts about the case

I was extremely pleased to be able to help Tom. We have kept in touch with him, and his wellbeing has improved substantially since his matter came to an end.

Before he came to us, Tom had tried different ways to get the films removed, including companies that promised to remove them, and none of it worked. This kind of work calls for thinking outside the box, and when you do, you can achieve what looks almost impossible. Here that meant meeting the producer's footage head on, and then accepting the rights in a form that also protected the other performers.

A producer's footage of you agreeing seldom settles the matter. What you were told before the camera was switched on can form part of the bargain, and a producer who has broken that bargain is in a weak position to rely on what you said on the day.

People in Tom's position tend to assume the prize is compensation. For someone who wants the films gone, the rights in the films are usually worth far more, because they turn every later request from a plea into a demand. We read the licence as a removal tool and not only as a settlement document: worldwide, free of costs traps, and able to outlive the person who holds it.

Removal is also a sequence, not a single letter: the source first, then the copies, then the hosts of the sites that will not answer, then the search engines. In the wrong order the trail can be lost. In the right order each step makes the next one easier. And for gay men whose lives or work take them to countries where being gay is a crime, an old film is not only a matter of reputation, so we plan the work around the client's travel from the first call.

I want to encourage anyone in Tom's situation to do whatever it takes. It is definitely worth it.

Frequently asked questions

I made gay adult films for money years ago. Can they still be taken down?

Usually, yes. Having agreed to the filming and taken a fee does not always mean you agreed to the films being published anywhere and for ever. In this case our client had been promised anonymity, and that promise, with his rights over his own private information, led the production company to take the films down and give him exclusive rights in them.

The producer promised the films would never go online, or would only be shown in a limited way. Does that count if I signed a release form?

It can. A promise made before filming, that the films would stay off the internet or would only be shown in a limited way, such as in hotels, for private viewing or on DVD, can form part of the agreement even where it is not in the form you signed. A producer who breaks it may be unable to rely on your agreement at all. How strong the point is depends on the evidence, so write down who promised what, and when, as soon as you can.

The producer has footage of me saying I agree to everything. Is that the end of it?

Rarely. What you said on camera was said on the basis of what you had been promised. If the producer broke that promise, it may be unable to rely on the footage at all. Producers sometimes treat this kind of footage as the end of the argument, and in our experience it seldom is.

The production company will not transfer the copyright. Is a licence enough?

An exclusive licence can be, and it may suit everyone better where the films include other performers. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the holder of an exclusive licence has the same rights against infringers as if the copyright had been transferred. It needs to be drafted with removal in mind: worldwide, without leaving you liable for the company's costs, and able to pass to someone you trust.

Can you remove the films from websites that ignore emails or give no contact details?

Usually, yes. Where a site does not answer, we write to the company that hosts it, and where a site sits behind a service such as Cloudflare, we find out who the host is. Hosts generally act on a valid copyright notice. In this case one site answered with an obscenity, and the film came down within weeks of our letter to its host.

Should I ask Google to remove the thumbnails straight away?

It is usually better to have the films removed from the websites first. Many search results then drop out on their own, and Google's removal tools deal with the rest. Asking Google too early can hide the results that lead to copies you have not yet found.

The films keep coming back on new sites. Can that be stopped?

New copies can be removed quickly once you hold the rights, and a site can be asked where it obtained the footage. Nobody can promise a copy will never reappear, so we agree fixed fees for new batches of sites or a monitoring arrangement, whichever suits you.

Can I keep my case private while I am abroad?

Yes. We keep in touch with our clients through encrypted communication rather than ordinary email, so you can follow your case safely wherever you are, and everything stays discreet.

I travel to countries where being gay is a crime. Can you work to my travel dates?

Yes. Tell us your dates at the first call. We arrange the sequence of removals around them, starting with the copies most easily found under your name, and everything can be handled remotely and securely while you are away.