How to separate platform-hosted and off-platform evidence before choosing a copyright, privacy, or platform-policy report.
Published ; updated
The service where a creator originally publishes a work may be different from the service hosting a suspected unauthorized copy. Record both, because each service has its own rules, evidence requirements, and reporting path.
Separate the original from the candidate
Keep the authorized post or sales-page reference, publication date, account ownership, and applicable terms with the exact candidate URL. Similar thumbnails, titles, or usernames are leads, not final proof.
Review the type of harm
- Copyright: a protected work may have been copied without authorization
- Privacy or intimate imagery: a dedicated safety process may be available
- Impersonation: an account may be presenting itself as the creator
- Fraud or scams: the page may misuse a name without copying a protected work
Use the host's official process
Check the current help or legal center for the service that actually hosts the post or file. If another page merely links to it, consider the link page and the source host separately. Forms, contacts, and eligibility rules can change.
Preserve human review
Before any legal notice, a person should confirm the match, rights, context, and requested action. Track the provider's decision without treating submission as removal.
Create a reference for each original post
Keep the authorised post URL, publication date, creator account, campaign or tier context, and an internal reference to the original file. If the work was previewed publicly, supplied to an agency, or licensed for promotion, record those permissions. This makes it easier to recognise an authorised teaser or partner post that has been separated from its original context.
Describe the candidate without spreading it
Use the live URL and the minimum image, timestamp, filename, or text needed to identify the candidate. Do not download archives, resend intimate media, or paste sensitive screenshots into broad support channels. Restrict evidence access and keep a separate note of who reviewed it and why.
Choose a provider map, not one universal form
- Original creator platform: account security, authorised publication, and platform-specific support
- Social or messaging post: the public post, account behaviour, and any external link
- Source host: the page or file that actually makes material available
- Search engine: eligible search results rather than deletion of the source
One incident may use several of these routes, but each should contain only the evidence relevant to that provider. Record which party controls the item and what outcome you requested. This prevents a removed social post from being mistaken for removal of an external file and keeps duplicated reports from obscuring the case history.
Check authorisation and exceptions
Creators often work with agencies, editors, photographers, performers, music licensors, and promotional partners. Confirm who owns the relevant work and who can act. Review previews, quotations, commentary, licensed promotion, and other possible explanations. Sensitive or urgent circumstances can justify specialist legal or safety advice, but urgency should not erase the authority check.
Keep monitoring claims honest
A later search may find a new mirror or a repost, but it cannot prove complete coverage of public or private services. Track the sources and media lanes actually checked, the date, and what was inaccessible. Report verified candidates and provider decisions—not a universal monitoring promise or a guaranteed permanent removal rate.
AISentinela is intended to organize possible matches and evidence for review across a limited, verified scope. It does not claim universal platform coverage or automatic takedowns. General information only, not legal advice.