Someone has shared my intimate images: documenting the psychological harm

A fake image and real harm are different issues

These cases can involve different situations: an authentic photograph shared without permission, an unlawfully obtained recording, a manipulated image, or a threat to share one.

They should not be treated as identical.

A sexual deepfake is an image or video altered to depict someone in a nude or sexual situation. A qualitative study published in 2025 interviewed fifteen people affected and ten perpetrators of these behaviors in Australia. The findings describe varied experiences and consequences, as well as ways of minimizing what happened. Because of the study design, they cannot establish prevalence or predict how a particular person will react.

Supporting references: [2] PubMed · Qualitative study · 2025.

From the perspective of expert assessment, there is a fundamental distinction:

Proving that a file has been manipulated does not automatically measure the suffering it has caused. And demonstrating suffering does not authenticate the file or identify its creator.

Digital and clinical evidence can complement each other. They should not replace each other.

What psychological consequences have been studied?

Research links the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images to difficulties with health and well-being.

A study published in 2025, conducted with 3,150 US adults during the pandemic, found worse outcomes on various indicators of well-being among those who reported this experience. This is an association in a specific population and context, not proof of what happened in any given Spanish case.

Supporting references: [3] PubMed · Study in adults · 2025.

Another study from 2026, involving 803 young adults who reported traumatic experiences, examined the relationship between intimate image sharing, shame, and depressive symptoms. It found relevant associations, but does not establish the same causal mechanism in everyone.

Supporting references: [4] PubMed · Study in young adults · 2026.

These findings justify paying attention. They do not justify diagnosing in advance.

In an assessment, I would ask about sleep, anxiety, mood, relationships, intimacy, concentration, and activities the person has given up. I would also ask about abilities they retain and the help they have received.

The goal is not to assume the greatest possible severity. It is to describe the impact that can actually be supported.

Moral harm and psychological harm are not the same

This distinction can change the approach to a claim.

moral harm refers to the personal harm that may accompany a violation of rights. It is not limited to a psychiatric diagnosis.

psychological harm requires examining whether there is a clinical disturbance, its severity, course, treatment, and functional impact.

In the civil protection of honor, privacy, and one’s own image, Spain’s Organic Law 1/1982 establishes a presumption of harm when an unlawful intrusion is proven and provides for compensation for moral harm based on the circumstances, severity, and extent of dissemination. That legal rule does not amount to presuming that every affected person has a psychiatric disorder.

Supporting references: [5] BOE · Organic Law 1/1982.

A “more severe” diagnosis should therefore not be sought to make the harm seem significant.

Nor should it be concluded that no violation occurred if a disorder cannot be established.

These are related but different dimensions.

Related reading—a different context: Psychological violence and psychological harm.

Sending an image privately does not authorize sharing it

Article 197.7 of Spain’s Criminal Code covers certain situations involving the unauthorized sharing of intimate images obtained with the person’s consent when disclosure seriously infringes their privacy. It also regulates subsequent sharing by someone who has received them, under the conditions set out in the article.

Supporting references: [6] BOE · Criminal Code.

This does not mean that every conflict involving images automatically falls under that provision.

Files entirely fabricated using AI require their own legal analysis: a provision designed for images obtained in a real intimate context should not simply be applied to every fabrication.

Depending on the facts, data protection, privacy, honor, image rights, or other forms of liability may be involved. The AEPD explicitly distinguishes different avenues of liability, which must be examined case by case.

Supporting references: [7] AEPD · Frequently asked questions.

The lawyer examines legal classification and strategy. The psychiatrist does not decide which crime has been committed.

Before the report: seek protection, request removal, and preserve necessary information

There is no need to wait for an expert assessment before seeking help or trying to stop the sharing.

The AEPD has a Priority Channel for reporting sexual or violent content published online when its unlawful dissemination seriously endangers a person’s rights or health. The Agency reviews the request and may take urgent measures; this does not guarantee automatic removal of every copy.

Supporting references: [8] AEPD · Priority Channel.

To process a request, it asks for information about the circumstances, the web addresses or profiles sharing the material, and the steps already taken. Identifying where the content appears is more useful than simply saying that “it is everywhere.”

Supporting references: [9] AEPD · Information for a request.

INCIBE’s 017, a free, confidential service, can offer guidance on cybersecurity incidents and appropriate next steps.

Supporting references: [11] INCIBE · Helpline.

Preserving evidence should not increase exposure

I would coordinate with the lawyer or digital specialist to identify the information needed: addresses, profiles, dates, messages, threats, and records of takedown requests.

I would not ask the person to forward the images to relatives to “have witnesses” or publish them to prove that they are fake.

Nor would I advise uploading intimate material to unknown AI tools to check its authenticity. The AEPD guide warns of additional risks when providing images to these systems, such as loss of control, retention of copies, and other uses that are difficult to determine.

Supporting references: [1] AEPD · January 2026 guide.

What each professional contributes

This division avoids asking an expert for a conclusion they cannot provide.

In my work, the purpose would not be to “prove that the video is fake” or “certify that someone is telling the truth.”

It would be to assess the clinical impact and explain the reasoning that does—or does not—support linking it to the events examined.

Digital evidence in another context—education and family: Bullying and cyberbullying.

How I would approach a forensic psychiatric assessment in these cases

A forensic assessment needs to integrate sources and consider their limitations. The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law guideline highlights the importance of documentation, interviews, and collateral information, while recognizing that every source may have biases. It also requires explaining the purpose of the evaluation and the limits of confidentiality.

Supporting references: [12] AAPL · Forensic assessment guideline.

On that basis, I would organize this assignment around five questions.

1. What event are we assessing?

I would neither take every statement in a complaint as proven nor reduce the matter to “a photograph was shared.”

I would need to distinguish the person’s account from what is documented: publication, threats, known reach, repeated sharing, subsequent messages, or the material reaching the workplace.

I would also clarify whether the assessment concerns the current condition, a past impact, or possible lasting impairment.

2. When did the person learn what had happened?

The date a file was created or published may differ from the date the person learned about it.

Imagine an image circulating on day 1, but the affected person learning about it on day 12. That difference matters when interpreting the onset of insomnia.

That is why I would build a timeline connecting awareness of the events, symptoms, consultations, and the subsequent course, without filling gaps with assumptions.

3. What difficulties are present, and what abilities does the person retain?

I would not limit the assessment to an anxiety score.

I would explore what is happening, its intensity, and how it affects everyday life. I would also ask about times when the person functions better, available support, and activities they continue.

Retaining some abilities does not negate the harm. Nor should those abilities be concealed to make the situation seem more severe.

4. What other explanations need to be examined?

I would review the previous condition and concurrent events: a breakup, a work problem, an illness, substance use, or previous episodes.

The aim would not be to find a reason to discredit the person, but to avoid attributing everything that happens afterward to a single event.

5. What conclusion can be supported?

The report should explain whether there is enough information to establish psychiatric injury, which causal link is defensible, and what uncertainties remain.

It may conclude that there is a significant impact. It may also conclude that lasting impairment cannot yet be assessed, that several factors are involved, or that the available information is insufficient.

Independence does not begin when the report is signed. It begins with accepting that the conclusion has not been decided in advance.

In civil proceedings, Spain’s Civil Procedure Act requires expert witnesses to be objective, including considering what may favor or disadvantage either party.

Supporting references: [13] BOE · Civil Procedure Act.

“They already had anxiety”: why that information needs context

A previous history does not, by itself, answer the question of causation.

Consider two fictional examples.

One person had been stable for years, working and maintaining relationships. After learning that the images had been shared, they develop episodes of distress, insomnia, and a new limitation.

Another was already experiencing a severe episode before publication and also suffers a major loss during the same period.

It would not be appropriate to write the same explanation for both cases.

In the first, possible subsequent decompensation would need to be examined. In the second, the questions would be what additional change can be linked to the sharing and which aspects were already present.

I would not propose concealing previous history. I would propose describing it in a way that makes clear what actually changed.

Nor would I equate a short-lived post with a necessarily brief effect. In a particular case, concern may center on who received the file, not just how long it remained accessible. That hypothesis needs to be checked against the clinical course and known facts.

Not all harm after intimate image sharing is PTSD

Intense symptoms can occur without meeting the requirements for post-traumatic stress disorder.

PTSD requires assessment of the type of event, a specific set of symptoms, duration, and impact. Having nightmares or feeling very afraid is not enough to establish it.

Supporting references: [14] National Center for PTSD · Veterans Affairs.

In these cases, the assessment should determine whether those requirements are met or whether another diagnosis better describes the situation.

Likewise, a diagnosis does not, by itself, establish who shared the file. It would be circular to claim that the events occurred because a disorder exists and that the disorder proves those events.

Clinical evidence must be integrated with documentary, digital, and witness evidence, without taking their place.

The difference between “she is very affected” and a useful expert description

A general statement conveys concern but leaves many questions unanswered.

In an assessment, I would try to turn it into specific information. For example, in a fictional scenario:

“Since learning that the images were shared, she has stopped attending certain meetings, sought care for insomnia, and needed someone to accompany her to work. It is necessary to examine what documentation supports these changes and how they evolve.”

This allows duration, intensity, and functioning to be examined.

It does not require inventing a suffering scale or exaggerating the diagnosis.

It also avoids a common error: confusing the number of views with clinical severity. In my analysis, I would examine reach alongside context, rather than treating it as an automatic multiplier of symptoms.

Sharing among people in the person’s own circle can have a different significance from anonymous exposure. The conclusion requires information from the case.

Treatment reports, expert assessments, and lasting impairment: three issues to distinguish

Treatment should begin when the person needs it, without waiting for a decision about a claim.

A treatment report can document consultations, symptoms, treatment, and progress. An expert assessment addresses a medical-legal question and must cross-check information, explain limitations, and remain independent. Clinical documentation is an important source for that assessment, but does not replace the entire analysis.

Supporting references: [12] AAPL · Forensic assessment guideline.

In addition, an early assessment does not require declaring permanent impairment.

If the condition is still evolving, I would offer a conclusion about the current state and identify what remains unresolved. I would not offer a definitive assessment simply because the proceedings need to move forward.

Receiving treatment and improving does not “ruin” the case. Expert work consists of honestly describing what happened and its course, not preserving symptoms to prove them.

Can compensation be claimed?

A claim for compensation may be possible, but a psychiatric report does not, by itself, determine either entitlement or the amount.

Organic Law 1/1982 provides for measures to stop and prevent unlawful intrusions and compensate for them. The legal assessment depends on the facts and the chosen legal avenue.

Supporting references: [5] BOE · Organic Law 1/1982.

In a case, I would propose separating the different elements: clinical impact, documented treatment expenses, potential financial losses, and moral harm. The lawyer must present them and avoid duplication.

An administrative penalty and compensation for the person affected are also different things. The AEPD distinguishes liability under data protection law from civil liability for damages.

Supporting references: [7] AEPD · Frequently asked questions.

I would not promise an amount or treat a diagnosis as though it carried a fixed price.

When an expert assessment is worth requesting

It can be useful when an impact needs documenting for legal proceedings, the causal link is disputed, or reports disagree.

Before commissioning a full opinion, I would propose clarifying with the lawyer which question it needs to answer and what documentation exists.

For that initial analysis, it would be enough to organize four groups of information: case documents, relevant clinical information, a brief timeline, and references to digital evidence already obtained lawfully.

The scope, time frame, and fees for an expert assessment depend on its complexity, the documentation, and the need for examinations, supplementary work, or court testimony.

Service information: Forensic psychiatry and psychiatric expert assessments.

Do you need to document psychological harm after intimate image sharing?

If the sharing of photographs, videos, or fabricated images is affecting your health and there are legal proceedings or a potential claim, an initial assessment can help determine what can be assessed, what documentation is missing, and whether an expert report is appropriate.

Dr. Marc Agraz conducts independent psychiatric expert assessments of psychological harm, functional limitations, causal links, and lasting impairment, with in-person appointments in Lleida and online assessment when methodologically appropriate.

Service information: Forensic psychiatry and psychiatric expert assessments.

For individuals and lawyers, the first step is to define the purpose of the assignment, rather than anticipate a conclusion.

General information. This does not replace legal advice, an individual assessment, or urgent care. The initial administrative contact does not require sending intimate images.

Frequently asked questions

Sources and resources