Images cannot be removed from search results directly, because image results are a mirror: every picture in them lives on a source page somewhere, and the image disappears from search when it disappears from the source, not before. So the realistic work is always source-first: identify the page hosting each image, use the removal pathway that page responds to, and clean up the search side afterwards.
The good news is that images have more removal pathways than most content. Intimate imagery has genuinely strong protections in Australia, copyright covers more situations than people expect, and Google runs specific request processes for several image categories. This article walks through the mechanics, which pathway fits which image, and what to do about the photos that no pathway covers.
Why is the image still showing in searches?
Because the page hosting it is still up. Search engines do not store your photo as their own copy that can be deleted on request; the images tab is an index of pictures found on web pages, ranked by the authority of those pages and how well the surrounding content matches your name. A photo attached to a news article ranks because the article ranks. A profile photo from an old account ranks because the account page still exists.
This mechanic explains the two frustrations people hit first. Deleting your own account or photo sometimes leaves the image visible in search results for weeks, because the index has not yet recrawled the dead page; Google's outdated content tool exists for exactly that gap and works reliably once the source is genuinely gone. And reporting an image to a search engine without touching the source page usually goes nowhere, because for most categories the search engine's answer is that the content is the website's, not theirs.
So every image problem starts with the same question: what page is hosting this, and what pathway does that page respond to?
Which images can actually be removed?
More categories than most content, and it is worth being precise about each.
Intimate images shared without consent have the strongest protections available. The eSafety Commissioner's image-based abuse scheme is free, Australian, and legally backed: eSafety can formally require platforms and websites to remove intimate images shared without consent, and non-compliance carries real penalties. Google separately maintains its own removal policy for this category. If this is your situation, start with eSafety, and if the images are being used to demand money, that is extortion; our sextortion guide covers the immediate steps, and if a minor is involved anywhere, it is a police matter first and only.
Images you took yourself are your copyright. A selfie, a photo from your camera roll, an image you created: if someone republished it without permission, copyright removal processes apply, both at the host and through search engines' copyright request channels. This covers a surprising share of scraped-profile and reposted-photo situations, because the photo someone lifted from your old account is usually a photo you took.
Images of your identity documents, financial details, or medical information fall under Google's personal-information removal policies and are generally the fastest category to action on the search side, alongside source takedown.
Images of under-18s: Google's policy allows minors, or their parents and guardians, to request removal of images of the minor from image results. That is a free, direct pathway for families, and it belongs to them, not to any paid service.
Everything else is discretionary. An unflattering but lawful photo, an image attached to accurate news reporting, a picture someone else took of you at a public event: no removal policy obliges anyone to act. The photographer owns the copyright in a photo they took of you, which surprises almost everyone, and "I don't like it" is not a category any platform recognises. For these, the pathways are asking the page owner, and suppression.
Match the image to the pathway
| The image | The pathway |
|---|---|
| Intimate image shared without consent | eSafety image-based abuse report, plus Google's dedicated policy. Free, legally backed |
| Photo you took, republished without permission | Copyright request to the host and search engine channels |
| ID documents, financial or medical imagery | Source takedown plus Google's personal-information process |
| Image of an under-18 | Google's minors policy, requested by the minor or parent. Free |
| Photo from an account or page you control | Delete at source, then the outdated content tool to clear the index |
| Photo attached to a news article | The article is the issue, not the image; see the news-article pathways |
| Lawful, unflattering photo someone else owns | A polite request to the page owner, then suppression |
The realistic order of work
- Inventory first. Search your name in the images tab, logged out, and list every unwanted image with the page URL it comes from (visiting the result shows the hosting page). People usually have several images across different categories, and the pathway differs per image.
- Action the strong categories. eSafety for intimate imagery, copyright requests for your own photos, Google's processes for personal-information and minors' images. These are documented, free, and do not require a provider.
- Delete what you control and clear the index. Old accounts and pages you own: remove the images at source, then run the outdated content tool so the index catches up in days rather than weeks.
- Ask the page owner for the rest. A short, polite request removes more lawful-but-unwanted images than people expect, especially from personal blogs, club pages, and event galleries where nobody feels strongly about the photo.
- Suppress what remains. For images no pathway covers, the work is crowding them out: publishing current, high-quality images of you on authoritative pages, profiles, and properties under your name, so the images tab fills with what you chose. Image suppression is slower than web suppression and follows the same logic as standard search suppression: the strongest source pages win.
What doesn't work
Reporting a lawful image to Google and hoping. Outside the specific policy categories above, the report goes nowhere, because the image is the website's content, not Google's.
Deleting the source and expecting instant results. The index lags the web. Use the outdated content tool instead of waiting.
False copyright claims. Claiming copyright in a photo someone else took is a formal misrepresentation with legal consequences, and the takedown industry's ugliest corner is built on exactly this. If a provider's plan involves claiming rights you do not hold, walk away.
Paying for guaranteed image removal. The categories with real pathways are free and documented. The categories without pathways cannot be guaranteed by anyone, because the decision belongs to page owners and platforms. What a legitimate provider sells is the work: the inventory, the requests done properly across many images and hosts, the persistence, and the suppression build for what stays.
Where professional help fits
Most single-image matters are self-serve, and the sections above are genuinely enough to handle them. Engagements make sense when the problem has scale or tangle: images spread across many hosts, scraped and republished faster than you can request removals, mixed with news coverage or forum threads, or tied to exposure of personal information in search results. ORMA's work there runs the full inventory, every removal pathway with grounds, and the suppression build across both web and image results, reported monthly.
The starting point is a free assessment: send what is showing and you will get a realistic read within one business day on which images have pathways, which are self-serve, and which need the longer work. About one in three assessments end without an engagement, because the matter is better handled differently or the cost does not justify the expected outcome. Start the assessment when you have your list.