I was up late last night and playing around on the net.  Happened upon Cityvibe's web site and found myself reviewing girls ads in different cities.  To my surprise, I found 3 of the photos from my web site on an ad that I never placed. I have never placed an ad with cityvibe. The ad is in the Chicago listing. I have never been to Chicago nor do I have any plans to. This is copyright infringement not to mention fraud.I was thinking about running an ad with Cityvibe.  Will someone please look there so I can have a few witnesses should the need arise. I left Cityvibe a voice message informing them of my findings.  If anyone finds me on anyplace other than thatmall or eros, email me in private.thanks luv, heather

Hi Heather! City vibe has used my photos and an add they lifted from another site on their adult personals. I let it be as it was not in thier main section and wanted to see if it brought an e-mails my way. It does, but I still do not like that they used my info without permission.As my pics are able to be stolen, I have discoverd that my pics are being used all over the place. My fault that they are usable, but how unscrupulous on thier end!I will write to them too. The site has been notorious for having ladies in it who were rip offs, although, like any site am sure there are legit people too, but would rather not have pics up without my permission.NicoleNicole

Heather & Niclole:Go to:  http://digimarc.com/ This company proides software that attaches an invisible watermark on your graphics / videos. After they are on the net and posted by someone else... their software allows you to look over the entire net and find the people who are using your graphics / movies... Excellent for copyright / trademark infringements... Best part is even if they have the software they cannot spot your watermark!!Mac

##### Wont post unless I add something to the body field....Sheesh!

...it could be used to protect the text on my site from being copied...  

I too had this happen w/cityvibe.  They had been sending me emails and calling me incessantly to advertise.  when I did not respond, they lifted my pic and put it in the LAS Vegas section. under fetish.  How did I find out?  Lots of emails that didn't make sense.  Finally someone told me.  It is a real inconvenience to be getting emails that are loaded with misinformation because of an inaccurately placed ad. Doesnt do anyone any good, (except of course for fattening up cityvibe's site).Mac, thanks for the info...and, if you do have the info to the question LL asked, let us know.  I had my site copied verbatim twice, which really bothered me, as I wrote my site painstakingly and from the heart.  On top of it, one of the "lifting ladies" was badmouthing meby telling some people that I had plagarized her site. so as you can see...this info really helps.Thanks, Mac.

I did call Cityvibe and they are researching the origin.  The link on the page takes you to Heather.com, a site devoted to girls named Heather.  This web site on whois.net is registered to Heather Barry with a Texas phone #. I called it and it turns out that it is a Dr's office (gynochologists) in Beaumont, TX. I spoke with their office manager Gary and he's going to call me back.  Sounds like a lawsuit to me. Copyright infringement.  Attempts to profit off my photos and to direct traffic to that site which sells products etc.  Calling all lawyers.

I called a lawyer and he said you'd have to prove how much money you've lost as a result of the action.

Luscious,If you want to protect your text, you can convert it to an image, and then use the Digimarc technique to track the image.  But it's a lot of trouble, and are you really worried about someone copying your text?For photos, another way to protect from stealing is to plaster your website address on the photo.The problem I see with the Digimarc system is that it only provides detection and then you have to persue them and try to get them to stop.  If you plaster your website on it, they either won't take it in the first place, or it will be a lot of trouble for them to remove the website.      --modified by mojo at Thu, Apr 12, 2001, 14:07:43

Most Luscious Laurel,I am afraid there is no guaranteed way to protect text on a site without creating an active-x control that actually disables foundation class functionality in the browser and the client PC.  Wow, sorry about that slip into techno-geek speak in normal speak “without making a program that messes with the viewers PC in a serious way”.  Or turning all your text in to images and then they can still get it and OCR it back in to text.  Plus the image approach is a pain to do.Also keep in mind what macvsog is proposing will not protect the images from being copied that can still be done in a variety of ways even with copy protection put in place but it will have a “digital watermark” so that you can see it is your picture that you created and was copied from your website.  In essence a finger print of sorts.  Some people do the equivalent by putting a brand on their pictures.  Felicia Foxx does a good job with this approach.You can however develop ways to protect Images from most copying approaches.  The old adage “you can make something fool proof but you can’t make it damn fool proof” holds true here.  We can set up something to prevent most piracy but if they really want it they will get it.  As to text there are some things you can do to prevent easy grabbing but if they really want it they can get it.Your best bet is to copyright your site and brand your images as I mentioned earlier like Felicia Foxx does.  Wish I had better news.  Send me an e-mail if you want to know more and maybe we can tighten up your site some.--jp--modified by JP at Wed, Apr 18, 2001, 08:24:44

Heather:It's not copyright infringement.  You can't copyright your likeness. You can sue for unauthorized use of your likeness, which is a form of the tort of defemation, which is different than copyright, using different evidence, and, if you go through to trial, you'll have to expose yourself in ways you're not used to, like nasty depositions, etc., and it's not something you want to do, because, well, your vocation is suspect, at least in the eyes of the court.  Hell, look how they ripped aboart Anna Nicole, and she was above board, at least legally in her relationship with that old guy.  Besides, no decent lawyer would put you through that.  An attorney tells you otherwise is a fool and should be avoided.Problem is a that trier of fact (judge/jury) has a right want to know what you are doing for a living becuase it's completely t's relevant evidence to the facts of your case. You can always say "adult entertainer," but a good attorney will cross you and eventually have to admit to offering "intimate adult services," which, you don't want to do, cause it's considered solicitation and illegal.You coild always write them a cease and desist letter, and they might oblige, since they don't want to put too much light upon their business model either, but if they don't, there's not much you can do, realisitically, excpet spread the bad word.  I think Cityvibe understands your options, realistically, are quite limited.Basically, it's the hazards of your profession.  So when folks complain about your rates, remind them that your professional risks and hazards are tremendous, much more than just about any profession.  Sorry,Shine

JP,Please explain the guaranteed way to protect text by "creating an active-x control that actually disables foundation class functionality in the browser and the client PC".  Do tell, how would that work?  Don't worry, I'm computer literate.  Then tell us how well that active-x control works when someone uses Netscape or is on a Mac or a Linux machine.

nothing against you personally, JP.Just that it's probably dudes like you who are making all kinds of dough from that extreme left-brained shit and in turn shelling it out on all these hot women on the boards.Woe!

Thank you, everyone, for your suggestions, but I was sort of kidding.  I don't really expect to be able to protect my text.  We're all influenced by each other's ideas, and sometimes we don't even remember that we read it somewhere else.  And, someone's liking an idea of mine enough to borrow it is complimentary, but it's customary to give credit to the person one borrows from, and, if one uses another's words verbatim, to first ask permission, then add a link to that person's site. Having said all that, I suddenly remember that I stole the leaves on my site from the free homepage I used to have, so I'm guilty, too.  Back to the drawing board... with my tail between my legs...JP, what is your e-mail address?(seedsower, I've been reading your posts, and I'm intrigued.)--modified by Luscious Laurel at Fri, Apr 13, 2001, 05:48:34

This is common practice on the Internet.  Everything ends up getting copied at some point.  I don't think you can get them for copyright infringment or fraud unless you actually take steps to copyright your material.  It's not as easy as putting a statement on your page...that means nothing.Look on the bright side, it's more exposure.  And isn't that what it's all about?

Seedsower, dude, not a problem and no offense taken what so ever!As to the left-brain stuff would it shock you if I told you one of my degrees is in Literature? --Poetry in particular.  And I actually have published a few poems and a short story.  I do however also do business/technology work because it pays better than poetry (shock and amazement I know!  But it seems to be true).  And as we all know the desire for the company of beautiful and sensuous women seems to need a little more than just poetry these days. --jp --modified by JP at Fri, Apr 13, 2001, 11:04:31

Okay Mojo, you asked.  But first my apologies to everyone for what follows next as it will not be pretty!  I will define a TLA (Three-Letter Acronym) J (that is nerd humor if anyone is still listening) once, from then on I will use the TLA.Please note that as I mentioned there is not guaranteed way yet to protect content you can just make it harder to copy.Also, as this board is dedicate to topics wondrous, interesting, and sensual i.e. Luscious Laurel, the Naughty Nicole of Southern California (type that three times fast!), the Fairest Felicia Foxx, the Delicious Faye Desiree, and Magnificent Monet just to name a few.  And ladies I am sure there are many of you I have missed in mention, please no offense need be taken, it is just that I am a boy of very little brain (and any even littler hair) and am often overwhelmed with the charm and elegance of the ladies on this board and so can not remember all the beautiful women who communicate on this board.Mojo, I think any further discussion should be done “off line” by way of e-mail.  Which I would be glad to do.  As what is about to follow is neither wondrous, interesting, nor sensual.  As you know there is no damn foolproof way to protect content but there are a few things you can do but they are not very elegant.  The approach would have several layers so as to build in more protection per layer.First thing to do is to write a Java script that disables the [Save As] event in the browser.  Easy to do, people do it all the time but can be gotten around.Next is to write an active –x control (AXC) that loads down and then goes to the Microsoft Foundation Class (MFC) for [Copy} and [Paste].  Yes actually hit the MFC.  So what you do is hit the MFC reset the Dynamic Link Library (.dll) to .odl replace the .dll with the new one brought down that disables [Copy and Paste] thereby preventing the Operating System (OS) from having those functions. (Editor note hang on to your hats because the TLA will be flying fast and furious and it gets ugly J)If you hit the MFC to reset the .dll then the OS will be deny the base functions needed for copying.  Of course you are resetting the whole MFC and therefore knock it out for all method calls on the MFC.  Of course upon closing of the browser you event message a re-set of the .odl to .dll and save the .dll to .dl2 for future use.  In plain English you are disabling the copy and paste for everything else as well as long as you have your browser open.  E.g. no Copy and Paste for MS Word, PowerPoint, or any other application.  So as stated earlier not an elegant solution and if it is known you are doing this it is easy enough for some folks –granted to prevent this by just setting up a script that watches the MFC and resets should they be altered.  Side note with Microsoft’s new C-Sharp this will actually be more doable as the MFC are to actually be Unified Modeling Language (UML) compliant to the point of discreet behaviors.  So that hitting an MFC will not be the gambling that it is now because of the multi-messaging that occurs.And finally would be to wrap all content with a Java wrapper and then set access to that content and feed it back as a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) request.  More on that off line if you want.As to Netscape instead of AXC it would be written with a Java applet but you have to use MS Java Developer Kit (JDK) as it has an object that handle the interaction between and MFC and applet.  Same goes for the Mac OS.  It would actually be easier to do, as the Mac OS is more discreet with its object model.  Instead of an active-x control it would have to be Java applet with most of the work done on a Java Server Page (JSP).  But the same method would apply just hitting the Mac Object classes instead. The AXC/MFC approach would need to be duplicated with a (JSP) that that also would hit the MFC.Finally as to LINUX, that would be the easiest or the hardest.  It would depend upon who configured the machine and if they were in the LINUX development group.  But in essences you could attempt to address the OS or you could grant a reverse permission based on Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of the [copy and paste] functions as well as –alt screen print- that has to be hit as well.Wow that was WAY too much info I am sure.  Again Mojo, send me an e-mail if any further questions. [email protected].  Again my apologies to everyone that read this and passed out from boredom.--jp--modified by JP at Fri, Apr 13, 2001, 20:11:17

I just found this, and after reading it, I'm afraid to write much about it!  The Fair Use section, which addresses plagiarism, is about two-thirds of the way down the page.  It's nice to read that the rules for citing our sources do apply to the 'net, despite some people's claims that they don't.As soon as I clear up my own little graphics-borrowing issue (ahem!), I think I'll put a link to the page on my site.  A  reminder to keep me honest.

Laurel,My e-mail is [email protected].  As to your reply I think you are most correct as to influence but the issue is credit and understanding.  And contrary to popular belief all the same standards of copyright and intellectual property do apply to the Web.  It is just a matter of enforcement and not application. Now to what I was attempting to say before I interrupted myself!It has been noted that the difference between a Shakespeare and a Galsworthy (I pick on him because my other choices in this would be a Clancy, Steele, or never mind.  But if I pick any body contemporary it will start a flame war for sure.  So...) as I was saying the difference between them is that they are both thieves stealing from the past and present.  It is just one was not caught and one was.  But the fact of influence should not chagrin nor deter you from protecting the content on your page as we are not just talking Art but also business.You should consider the best balance between cost of protection and the benefit of protection.  And since your on-line content is critical to your business it is something that should be evaluated.  As to the leaves, well I have seen your site and your pictures especially with that smile are something valuable and the leaves are probably Public Domain if I had to guess.  So don’t sweat that.  Again my e-mail is [email protected].  Love to hear from you.--jp

Laurel,My e-mail is [email protected].  As to your reply I think you are most correct as to influence but the issue is credit and understanding.  And contrary to popular belief all the same standards of copyright and intellectual property do apply to the Web.  It is just a matter of enforcement and not application. Now to what I was attempting to say before I interrupted myself!It has been noted that the difference between a Shakespeare and a Galsworthy (I pick on him because my other choices in this would be a Clancy, Steele, or never mind.  But if I pick any body contemporary it will start a flame war for sure.  So...) as I was saying the difference between them is that they are both thieves stealing from the past and present.  It is just one was not caught and one was.  But the fact of influence should not chagrin nor deter you from protecting the content on your page as we are not just talking Art but also business.  You should consider the best balance between cost of protection and the benefit of protection.  And since your on-line content is critical to your business it is something that should be evaluated.  As to the leaves, well I have seen your site and your pictures especially with that smile are something valuable and the leaves are probably Public Domain if I had to guess.  So don’t sweat that.  Again my e-mail is [email protected].  Love to hear from you.

Dobson,You are correct as the condition and terms for intellectual property protection require "active and continuous defense" of you intellectual property.  This would mean filing a copyright and/or trademark request.  Of actively identifying protected material and notifying party's of their violation.  But as this relates to the core business of the ladies it is something surely to be considered.Also you note that “is it not all about exposure”.  I would argue that actually exposure without the ability to control or respond is more detrimental to the core business of providers than no exposure at all. ((BTW provider is a term that does not quite ring true for me.  I mean what does it mean? Someone who gives out provisions like, salt, flour, hard tack, and all that other crap we learned about when studying the Oregon Trail in 3rd grade.  Or even less helpful is it actual definition of provider.  Which has mulitple meanings (1) To take measures beforehand. Or (2) To make a proviso or stipulation. Or (3) To supply what is needed. –This makes the most sense but so does a water fountain supply something needed and we don’t call those providers or McDonalds for that fact does the same thing! As I was saying no real sense for me but…) Okay I think I forgot to take my succinctness tablet today!  Sorry about that distraction.As I was saying, I think that it is very possible to be over exposed and thereby negatively impact your business.  For example, by having their image and contact information lifted to a new site w/o their knowledge a lady will see a spike in e-mail traffic which requires more time from her to reply and thereby for each invalid lead received by e-mail and that she has to read or address reduces the time spent with proper leads.  So I think the exposure questions is not as unequivocal as on would think.  Again just my opinion.--jp--modified by JP at Fri, Apr 13, 2001, 11:12:26--modified by JP at Fri, Apr 13, 2001, 16:57:45

Dear Dobson...I dont totally agree about the exposure part. But I think I see your point, I think.... 1) Anyway, re negative exposure. This has happened to me quite a bit.  Like I said about my ad being placed on cityvibe, ensuing hassles, wrong info, wrong implications.  More times than not  strange emails coming in  which had me baffled. Please read JP's last paragraph. (JP you'll have to explain the second paragraph in your post, it went over my head and gave me a haircut on its way, lol  2) Second scenario about exposure.... About 2 years ago, IEG's porn actress Felecia was a constant guest on H. Stern.  (I knew nothing of her at the time but she knew of me and every time she was on his show (frequently) she proceeded to  badmouth me.  Because this woman kept  calling me a fake and a phony, I had tons of hate mail, rude phone calls, etc, etc, I was in tears for about 6 months, because it went on and on every time she would go on Howard Stern. I was shortly thereafter sued by IEG  for $75,000 over my legally owned domain Felicia.com. When I received IEG'S court summons in the mail, I was already upset because of all the hate mail. And need I tell you about the hassle of finding the right intellectual property lawyer at that time? That was another   downward spiral.  I almost lost my domain. (I picked up two other domains in the process and duped them, in order to protect myself) Because I was so upset, it was very hard for me to work at that time. Unfortunately by the time I did get some COMPETENT help, it was no longer timely to sue for emotional distress, etc.  All during this hassle, friends kept trying to comfort me by saying, hey you are getting exposure.  Well I did not get anything good out of this, just hate mail and hate phonecalls. Nothing positive from that exposure, as of yet.My  feeling is that not all exposure is good, so even tho I love not wearing panties I try to be careful around whom.  Then again, Dobson, one could argue that advertising on the internet is almost like flashing on a freeway ramp, lol.xoxoFF     --modified by feliciafoxx at Fri, Apr 13, 2001, 16:31:31

To argue that a few pictures lifted from HB's site is going to cause her to have negative exposure......well excuse me, but I can't stop laughing.  Have you seen her site?

Fairest Felicia,My 2nd paragraph was a misguided ramble (emphasis on ramble) on the term provider as well as an attempt to posit the argument that exposure is a good thing only if your desire for exposure and your systems to capitalize on it or in place.As to your suggestion that is it the equivalent to flashing on the freeway I would agree because you are beautiful and smart but would like to suggest another view in that advertising on the web is a way of controlling your exposure more than ever and therefore far more discriminating than the flashing on the freeway ramp.  Also probably causing far fewer accidents or crashes.  --JPp.s. I will edit the 2nd paragraph to make it more coherent!  If possible given the source and the editor are the same.--modified by JP at Fri, Apr 13, 2001, 19:17:13

Let me try to sort this all out.  I'm not arguing or saying that it's ok to steal someone else's work and passit off as their own.  I certainly wouldn't want my picture plastered all over the internet under another's name.  BUT...I don't spash 100's of images of myself all over the place to start with.Sure there can be negative consequences of having your picture used....someone may think you use many different names or that GOD FORBID...you're just another agency with stock photos.The realitiy is that we (providers and customers) know what the real deal is (thanks in good part to forums like this) so we don't fall for that crap.  My original point was only that if you want and seek copyright protection, you must register your work to get it.  The internet is like a huge public domain and most content is fair game if it's not properly protected.I think it's wrong to use fake pics....and I think it's dispicable to use someone elses.  I support HB's position (probably much to her surprise), but unless she takes steps to protect her content she's just SOL when it comes to pirating.

As someone who did his first programming using Fortran on an IBM 360, I don't want to sound too old fashioned. But I'd like to know how the above rigmarole with active -xcontrol would prevent someone from simply copying down (with pen and paper) the text from the screen. We're not talking about translating the Dead Sea Scrolls here.

Nothing would prevent them from physically transcribing the site and as was noted several times in this thread there is nothing to stop someone from copying the site if they really desire to copy the site.  The only thing that can be done is to put actions in place that increase the effort needed to copy the site thereby reducing the number of people who will copy the site.--jp

I am able to asist anyone that wants to protect their web sites from being ripped off. I can encode your photo's so they cannot be downloaded or copied. That is what I have been doing for a living for ten years, and I do it well. Copyright infringement only applies to those that identify their photo's as copywrited, with a liitle c in a circle, the name of the copywrite owner, and date of copywrite. Without those things done and a diclaimer on the web site it become public domain, and can be stolen and used by the public without recourse. In tyhe event that you can prove you did copywrite it properly, and they stole it anyway after seeing the notice of copywrite, then you have a claim if and only if you can show that you have suffered damages as a direct result of their use of your material or if they have profited by the use of your intellectual property (pot's, contecnt, design and layout). I am available to those that wish more details. Just reply, and I will respond.