OnlyFans, Revenge Porn and Sarah Juree: An Indiana Lawyer's Perspective

I'm Attorney Mark Nicholson, the Battery Man. I earned that nickname because I focus heavily on criminal battery cases and aggressively defend people accused of serious crimes. But my work has also taken me into another disturbing area of law: revenge porn and the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images.

One of the people who opened my eyes to the full scope of this problem was my client, Sarah Juree.

Sarah was an OnlyFans creator and a former school teacher. She was also one of the first people to come to me and explain how individuals were weaponizing private or subscription-based adult content against the people who created it.

Her story was not about an internet scandal. It was about a person whose private life was exposed to her employer without her consent, and the devastating consequences that followed.

Sarah Juree's case exposed a larger problem

Sarah had an OnlyFans account. Like many creators, she used the platform to produce content for paying subscribers. That decision did not give anyone permission to steal, copy, redistribute, or use that content to destroy her career.

Someone exposed Sarah's OnlyFans material to her school district. As a result, she lost her job.

That is what people often fail to understand about image-based sexual abuse. The harm does not end when an image or video is posted online. The material can be sent to an employer, a family member, a school, a church, a professional licensing board, or an entire community.

The person distributing the content may describe it as a “joke” or claim that the victim “put it online.” Those excuses do not change the facts. Consent to share intimate content with one person: or with paying subscribers under defined conditions: is not blanket consent for someone else to distribute that content wherever they want.

Sarah was one of the first people who told me directly about the way this abuse was being used against people in the adult entertainment industry. When she searched Google for an attorney who handled these kinds of cases, my firm came up as the number one result.

At that point, I understood the individual case before me. What I had not yet fully appreciated was how massive the problem had become.

After Sarah's case, the calls kept coming. Then more calls came. And more after that.

I began hearing from people whose intimate photographs or videos had been shared without permission, used to threaten them, sent to their workplaces, posted on websites, or circulated through social media and private messaging groups. What looked at first like isolated misconduct was part of a much broader network involving individuals, websites, online communities, and businesses that profited from humiliation and exploitation.

Sarah helped bring that reality into focus.

Revenge porn is not a victim's fault

The phrase “revenge porn” can sometimes make this abuse sound like a relationship dispute. It is not.

A person does not lose their right to privacy because they once trusted a partner. A person does not consent to public distribution because they created content for a subscription platform. And a person does not deserve to lose a job, a relationship, or their reputation because someone else chose to violate their trust.

The responsibility belongs to the person who disclosed or distributed the material without consent.

This is especially important when the victim works in adult entertainment. People may try to argue that the victim should have expected exposure. That argument is both cruel and legally dangerous. Participating in consensual adult content does not authorize unauthorized distribution. The victim still has boundaries. The victim still has rights.

Sarah's experience showed me how quickly those boundaries can be ignored, and how aggressively victims must fight to enforce them. You can read more about her journey by reading her book, Diary of an Onlyfans Model.

Indiana law treats nonconsensual distribution as a serious offense

Indiana has both criminal and civil laws that may apply when someone shares intimate content without consent.

Under Indiana Code § 35-45-4-8, a person may commit the crime of distribution of an intimate image when they distribute an intimate image while knowing, or reasonably having reason to know, that the person depicted did not consent to the distribution.

The statute is aimed at conduct commonly called revenge porn. It can apply to photographs, digital images, and videos depicting sexual conduct or intimate areas when the legal requirements are met.

Indiana's voyeurism statute, IC 35-45-4-5, may also be relevant in cases involving the recording or observation of a person without consent in circumstances where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The exact law that applies depends on how the image or video was created, obtained, recorded, and distributed.

There may also be civil remedies. Indiana Code §§ 34-21.5-3-1 through 34-21.5-3-3 provide a civil framework for claims involving the nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images. Depending on the facts, a victim may be able to seek damages, attorney's fees, court costs, injunctive relief, or other remedies.

A criminal case and a civil case are separate matters. A prosecutor decides whether criminal charges will be filed. A victim may pursue civil relief through a lawsuit. The evidence, deadlines, defendants, and available remedies can differ substantially.

That is why victims should not wait or assume that reporting the material to a website is enough. Preserve evidence. Save URLs. Capture screenshots. Document who received the content and when. Keep copies of messages, emails, threats, and platform reports.

The more quickly evidence is preserved, the more options an attorney may have to identify the person responsible and seek removal or legal relief. My firm also provides information for people dealing with these cases through our resources on Indiana revenge porn victims and Indiana revenge porn law.

My review of Viewer Discretion Advised: The OnlyFans Story

I recently discussed the Tubi documentary Viewer Discretion Advised: The Story of OnlyFans and Courtney Clenney. The documentary examines the growth of OnlyFans, the money and creator control associated with the platform, the threats faced by creators, and the Courtney Clenney murder case.

The film also features interviews with Sarah Juree.

That made the documentary especially significant to me. Sarah is not simply a commentator discussing an abstract internet trend. She lived through the consequences. She experienced what happens when someone takes content created in one context and deliberately exposes it in another context to cause maximum damage.

The documentary provides an interesting look at how OnlyFans expanded during and after the COVID period. It also explores the enormous attention surrounding the Courtney Clenney case and the way online identity, adult-content platforms, social media, and true crime became intertwined.

The Courtney Clenney case ended with a guilty plea. As of August 10, 2026, Clenney pleaded guilty to manslaughter with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to six years in prison, with credit for time served and additional probationary consequences. WSVN reported on the plea and sentence.

That criminal case is separate from Sarah's experience. But both stories demonstrate how quickly online platforms can transform private conduct into public spectacle. Once that happens, the people involved may face consequences that extend far beyond the original event.

As a true-crime documentary, I think Viewer Discretion Advised is worth watching. It is a fast-moving introduction to OnlyFans, the creator economy, image-based abuse, and the Clenney case. It may not answer every difficult question, but it brings attention to issues that deserve serious discussion.

My rating: five batteries. 🔋🔋🔋🔋🔋

The fight is bigger than one website

Sarah's case began with content on OnlyFans, but the problem is not limited to that platform.

Intimate images can be copied, downloaded, screen-recorded, reposted, indexed, and redistributed across countless websites and applications. A person who creates the original content may have little control over where it goes after someone else violates the terms of access.

The people responsible may believe they are protected by distance, fake accounts, or the speed of the internet. They are not automatically beyond reach. Digital evidence can create a trail. Usernames, payment records, messages, device information, account activity, and metadata may become important evidence.

The first step is to stop treating this conduct as harmless gossip. It is an attack on a person's privacy, dignity, livelihood, and security.

If you are facing this kind of abuse in Indiana, do not delete the evidence because it is painful to look at. Do not negotiate with the person threatening you without understanding the legal consequences. Do not assume that paying money or complying with demands will make the material disappear.

Speak with an attorney who understands both the criminal and civil sides of the problem.

We fight when someone tries to destroy your life

Sarah Juree's case was one of the earliest revenge-porn cases I handled. It taught me that this form of abuse was far more widespread: and far more organized: than I initially understood.

Today, I approach these cases with the same aggressive mindset I bring to criminal battery defense. I investigate the facts, preserve evidence, identify the responsible parties, and build a strategy designed to protect the client's rights and future.

At the Law Office of Mark Nicholson, we provide aggressive advocacy, 24/7 consultation availability, and thorough case preparation. Our representation has earned recognition including Top Attorney and Best Pro in Town honors.

Your Privacy Was Violated. You Have the Right to Fight Back.

If someone shared, or threatened to share, your intimate photographs or videos without your consent, you do not have to face the humiliation, fear, and uncertainty alone. Preserve all screenshots, messages, URLs, usernames, and other evidence, and speak with an attorney before confronting the person responsible or paying any demand. The Law Office of Mark Nicholson represents victims of nonconsensual intimate-image distribution throughout Indiana. We can evaluate what happened, explain your legal options, and pursue appropriate measures to identify the responsible parties, stop further distribution, and seek compensation for the harm caused. Contact the Law Office of Mark Nicholson today for a confidential consultation.