Straight answers.

No. There are two ways in. You can run a small free app on your own computer, which reads the video where it sits and sends us only numbers describing how it looks and sounds. Or you can drop one video into the browser, which is quicker to start and which we delete once the search is done. The app is the more private of the two.

One video, one search, full results, no card and no account. There is no catch on that. The paid plans exist for people with a lot of videos who want them rechecked every week or every day, which is a different job from finding out what is out there once.

No. The free check does not ask you to sign up. If you later want us to keep watching for new copies over time, that needs an account, but nothing about the first search does.

Reading your video takes a few minutes on an ordinary computer, faster with a graphics card. The search itself is quick. The honest answer is that we are still measuring this properly and we would rather tell you that than invent a number.

We publish the list, with how many videos we have read from each one and when we last looked. It is on the coverage page and it is deliberately public, because a search tool that will not say where it searched is asking you to trust a number you cannot check.

You can still get it taken down. Most large platforms run a separate report path for private sexual content shared without consent, and that path does not ask who owns the copyright. It asks whether you are in it and whether you agreed to it being posted. When the other person held the camera, that is the route to use first, not a copyright notice.

Yes. We are not matching your face, and we never ask for it. We match the picture and the sound of the video itself, so a clip with no face in shot is no harder for us than any other.

No. We find the copies and give you the exact links, the fastest reporting route for each site, and the wording to use. Filing is yours to do, or a lawyer’s. We are deliberately a search tool and not an agency, and pretending otherwise would be a worse product and a worse promise.

That is the normal pattern and it is the part that wears people down. Two things help: StopNCII, which blocks matching uploads on participating platforms before they go live, and having someone keep checking so a new copy is found in days rather than by a stranger sending you a link.

Do not use this tool for that. Contact the police, and use Take It Down, run by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which exists specifically for images of people who were minors at the time. That work has legal powers and obligations attached to it that we do not have and should not have.

About six or seven seconds when the original sound is still there, which covers most re-uploads because almost nobody bothers replacing the audio. About fifteen seconds if we only have the picture. Below about five seconds there is not enough left to tell it apart from everything else, and no tool can honestly claim otherwise.

All of those are expected and none of them stop it. We search the mirrored version as well as the original, we search across a range of speeds, and the readings we take barely move when a video is re-encoded or recoloured. Cropping loses part of the picture but not the sound.

That is the case the whole thing was built for. We are not asking whether two files are the same, we are looking for a stretch of seconds that line up, so a seven second slice sitting forty minutes deep in someone else’s upload reports itself the same way a whole file would.

We tell you exactly which sites we searched and when we last read them. Nothing found across a stated list of sites is real information. It is not proof that nothing exists anywhere on the internet, and we will not present it as one.

Not yet. Today this works on video and audio only. If what leaked is photos, StopNCII is the better route right now and we would rather send you there than take your money for something we do not do.

No. Anything you send us to search for is marked as a search, never as something that can be searched against. That separation is enforced in the code rather than by a policy someone has to remember, and it applies whether you used the app or the browser.

A list of numbers describing how the video looks and sounds, taken twice a second. About two and a half megabytes per hour of video, roughly four hundred times smaller than the file. No frames, no audio, no file. Someone technical can confirm this by watching their own network traffic while it runs.

If you are technical, you do not have to believe us: watch your own outbound traffic while the app runs and you will see numbers going out, not media. If you are not technical, being unsure about that is reasonable, and we would rather say so than wave it away. The browser option exists for exactly that case, and it deletes the file once the search is done.

Only if you have an account and asked us to keep watching. A free check with no account leaves nothing attached to a name, because there is no name to attach it to.

No, and nobody does. We search a published list of sites and we tell you which ones and how fresh each one is. Any tool that says it searched everything is either not counting or not telling you.

No. We report where content appears and how confident we are, and nothing more. A copy that turns out to be a legitimate licensed one is a result you look at and dismiss in two seconds, not a failure of the search.

They are useful for building your own case: links, timestamps, and which seconds appear where. They are search output, not certified evidence, and we will not dress them up as something a court has already accepted.

We are not going to quote a precision figure we have not measured. The plan is to seed known content, cut it into clips of different lengths, apply every disguise we know about and publish where it starts failing. Until that table exists, treat the numbers on this site as design targets.