If you are reading this you’re either a curious guy *hi* or an unoriginal, desperate copycat. If you can’t be creative or original in your own right, trust me, you’ll suck at phone sex.

Imitation may be the sincerest from of flattery…but copycats fucking SUCK! Enough said.

Back to My Niteflirt Listings

A special thanks to Princess Mandy @ for allowing the use of her extensive page on copyright law.

Here is a little note to the copycats/bandwidth
stealing fools/picture stealing fucktards.

Something you should know, which I bet you already do. If you
think about stealing ANYTHING from My site you should think again.

As of this week I OWN MY OWN SERVER. What does this mean to
stupid shit heads who steal? Well let’s put it this way. You are trying to run a
site like mine it’s only a matter of time before a
friend,sub,customer,member,surfer notifies Me that you "copycat" have stolen
from My site. You "copycat" seem to think that you never will be caught…Here
is news for you..THEY ALWAYS get caught! I can’t count how many times people
have stolen from My websites and niteflirt listings. I always get a good laugh
out of the fools who try to change the wording around to make it look as if they
did not steal. Just because you "copycat" have an IQ of 59 does not mean the
rest of us do. So back to Me owning My own server. Guess what I AM THE HOSTING
COMPANY LOL! So if I do find a site or someone reports it back to Me that in
fact you have stolen from Me, You get a nice "COPYCAT" page all to yourself with
your name on it, then I will contact your hosting company. If you still do not
remove it then I will contact My lawyer. Seems pretty simple don’t you think? 
Great thing about owning your own server is when a "copycat" steals who are they
going to call and cry to, when I put your "copycat" page up and let all the
other Femme Dommes,Internet Princesses,Niteflirt girls aware and to watch out
that you are in fact a "copycat" MEOW.


The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright: by
Attorney David L. Amkraut

WARNING: The following is a summary of important information regarding the use
and misuse of photos on the Internet. It is not specific legal advice. Copyright
is a specialized field of law, and there are sometimes exceptions to the rules.
If you have a specific copyright concern, you should consult a lawyer with
expertise in copyright issues concerning the use and misuse of photos on the

AN EXCELLENT RULE OF THUMB: If you do not have specific permission (preferably
written!) from the owner of a photo, you cannot legally display it on a website,
post it to the Usenet, copy it, send it around by Email or other means, make
photos derived from it, sell it, or otherwise exploit it.

MYTH # 1.
"I do not need to register my photos with the copyright office, because I
‘automatically’ have copyright at the instant I snap the shutter."

This is a serious misunderstanding of the law. Yes, you do own copyright without
registration. BUT if you want to protect your photos from theft, you should
register them with the Copyright Office, before you publish or distribute them.
If you register your photos, you gain powerful remedies against infringers.
These can include: * Civil penalties ("damages"). The pirate is on the hook for
up to $150,000 for each misused photo; * Attorney’s fees: the infringer has to
pay your attorney’s hourly fees and all costs such as copies, postage, filing
fees, etc. * Restraining orders, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions against
the infringer, and even seizure of the pirate’s computer equipment in some

An important practical point is that if the photos are registered, you might
find an attorney to take the case on "contingency," which means he takes the
risk of gambling on a win, rather than you paying him by the hour. Faced with a
lawsuit over registered images-and an injunction which would likely mean being
put out of business forever-many pirates will quickly settle up and pay.

By contrast, if you did not register your photos, it is almost impossible, as a
practical matter, to nail an infringer. To get any damages at all, you have to
prove how much the pirate made off your particular photos, or exactly how much
money the theft cost you. Either is almost impossible to prove. And you do not
recover attorney’s fees, so the cost of the lawsuit would far outweigh your
possible recovery.

So-if you have registered your work, you are in good shape to "convince" an
infringer to stop, or to successfully sue him. If you have not registered, you
probably cannot do anything about pirates.

MYTH # 2.
"I got the photo off the Usenet (newsgroups) so it is in the ‘Public Domain’."

The above shows a misunderstanding of the term "Public Domain." The term has the
specific legal meaning that no one controls the photo; anyone can use it as he
wishes. There are two ways for a photo to fall into in the public domain. * the
owner clearly gives up his rights, such as by signing a document saying, "I now
give up my copyright and irrevocably place this work in the public domain." OR *
75 Years have passed since the owner died.

When an owner posts a photo to Usenet, he does not lose his rights, any more
than publishing the photo in a magazine or on his own website would. When an
owner posts to Usenet, the only license he gives is for replication and
transmission within the Usenet system. There have been many copyright cases
involving websites which got their content from the Usenet-and courts have
awarded fines in the millions of dollars against the pirates.

In addition, photos are often posted to Usenet against the owner’s wishes. Eg.,
the many infringing copies of work owned by Playboy, Penthouse, and top
photographers. Such posts are themselves violations of copyright. Obviously if
the original post to Usenet was illegal-as many are-subsequent copying and
misuse is equally illegal.

In short, taking photos from Usenet and using them elsewhere such as on a
website is copyright infringement, and you risk the severe penalties of piracy.

MYTH # 3.
"My [website use, posting, whatever] is ‘Fair Use’ so I haven’t violated

"Fair use" is a legal "defense" to copyright. It was created to allow use of
copyright material for socially valuable purposes such as commentary, parody,
news reporting, education and the like, without permission of the copyright
holder. A typical instance would be a brief quotation from a book as part of a
book review. Uses allowed by "Fair Use" are normally a small part of a work and
include an author credit and attribution. Fair uses are generally for non-profit
purposes. Fair use is rarely allowed where the use competes directly with the
work or harms its commercial value.

Most fair use situations involve text. It is difficult to imagine any situation
involving the Internet where someone copying a photo could claim the fair use

In typical infringement activities, such as unauthorized posting to Usenet,
stocking websites from Usenet trolling, scanning from Playboy magazine, or
simply copying from other websites-the fair use doctrine does not apply. Because
the pirate is taking 100% of the work, not acknowledging the creator, hurting
the work’s market value, competing directly with the creator or licensed users
of the work, and for other reasons.

So if you are a photo pirate, do not even think about the fair use doctrine. In
your context it is a myth. Your lawyer will laugh at you, and the judge might
not have a sense of humor where thievery is concerned.

MYTH # 4.
"If it does not have a copyright notice on it, it is not copyrighted-so I can
use it freely."

This myth results from past law, and misunderstandings of past law being passed
along. In virtually all cases, photo copyright is valid whether or not there is
a copyright notice.

A copyright notice has two main functions. First, it warns off at least a few
would-be pirates that the work is not to be stolen. Second, it has some useful
legal effects, because it prevents the infringer from claiming he was making an
"innocent" mistake.

The copyright notice may be omitted because the owner or legitimate user does
not want to deface the photo, or even because an intermediary infringer has
deliberately removed the notice. (Removing a copyright notice is itself a
serious legal violation.) And of course, if someone has illegally scanned and
posted Playboy pictures or the like, there will not be a notice. However, the
absence of a copyright notice does not change the fact that a work is

We are reminded of an anecdote about a thief who stole a bicycle from a public
place. When caught by the owner, the thief protested, "I didn’t know that it was
your bike." Replied the owner, "You sure as blazes knew that it wasn’t yours!"

A proper notice has the © mark, or word "Copyright" or abbreviation "Copr."; the
year, and the name of the owner. For example, if this author took and published
a photo in 2000, it might be marked "© 2000 David L. Amkraut" or "Copyright 2000
David L. Amkraut" or "Copr. 2000 David L. Amkraut." You can add "All Rights
Reserved" if you want-it has no real significance in the U.S. and most countries
but has a bit in several 3rd world countries. The commonly-seen parenthesis
"(c)" instead of the proper copyright mark "©" has no legal significance and may
invalidate the notice.

So, if you do not see a copyright notice, do not assume the photo is yours to
use; someone owns copyright and you have to get his permission before using it.

MYTH # 5.
"If I am not making money off the photos, I am not violating copyright."

Copyright infringement is not excused if you are doing it for some reason other
than profit, such as malice or the collectivist notion that an individual’s
creative work "should be free for all to share." These are the typical motives
of some people who post thousands of Playboy photos to newsgroups. The court may
fine you more or treat you more harshly if you have a profit motive. But you can
still get punished-badly-if your actions are harming the commercial value of the
infringed pictures. Or if you infringed "knowingly" or "willfully." Or if the
judge thinks it appropriate to "send a warning" to discourage other would-be

Violating copyright is illegal whether you do it for money, love, competitive
advantage, malice, or any other reason.

MYTH # 6.
"I’ll win. I have a lot of rights in court. And they can not do much to me

Very wrong. A pirate is far more likely to be sued in civil court than to be
arrested and criminally charged. As a civil defendant you have far fewer rights
than in a criminal case. The Plaintiff only has to convince the judge that he is
more right than you. He does not have the heavy burden of "beyond a reasonable
doubt" as in a criminal case.

A copyright Plaintiff does not have to prove much to win. He just needs to show
two things: (1) Ownership of the copied work; and (2) Copying or other misuse by
the Defendant. He proves the first by showing his Certificate of Registration
from the copyright office. He proves the second by showing his photos and your
infringing copy side-by-side. End of story.

And a copyright suit, in federal court, moves surprisingly quickly. You could be
slapped with a restraining order immediately after the suit is filed, meaning an
end to your infringements under threat of arrest for contempt of court. For
technical reasons having to do with the copyright law and federal rules of
procedure, final judgments may be reached within a few months.

Perhaps you think you can charm or fool a jury? If the facts and issues are
clear-and they generally are in such cases-the judge will decide the case. You
will never see a jury.

Think you can fight it? Talk to a copyright specialist attorney and think of
paying by the hour for what will probably be a hopeless defense. And do not
forget, Mr. Pirate, that when you lose you will also be stuck for the
Plaintiff’s legal fees.

Can they "do much" to you? Copyright penalties have been called "nuclear."
Penalties of up to $150,000 per photo are permitted. And an injunction which,
depending on your business method, may put you out of business forever, is

Do not assume you can successfully defend a legitimate copyright case,
especially when registered photos are concerned. As a rule of thumb, if you get
caught, better try to settle cheap and quickly.

MYTH # 7.
"Copyright violation is not a crime-it is just a quarrel between two

Wrong. Copyright violation is a crime as well as a civil wrong. Read the splash
screen disclaimer at the start of any video you rent if you think otherwise. Or
talk with an FBI agent. Most of the copyright cases we see are federal felonies,
as well as civil law violations.

In addition to the severe civil and criminal penalties of copyright violations,
the same acts leave the pirate open to additional civil and criminal charges,
for wrongdoing like "unfair competition," and violation of the "No Electronic
Theft" law and other statutes.

We are not saying that a pirate can expect to be arrested by FBI agents for his
theft of photos. But it is a possibility, especially if the FBI responds to
demands for action against Internet pirates and begins pursuing such cases more
actively. And especially if the pirate is infringing on a large scale or
infringing work owned by a large corporation.

Unless you have specific permission, you can not distribute, copy, publicly
display, sell, or otherwise exploit or commercially use someone else’s photos.

Photos posted on newsgroups are not yours to use. They are not in the "public
domain." In fact, with extremely rare exceptions, no recently-created photo is
in the public domain.

The "Fair Use" doctrine almost never excuses infringement of a photograph,
particularly where the infringing use is commercial or where it hurts the market
for the photo.

Copyright is normally valid with or without a copyright notice.

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement regardless of the infringer’s

People who infringe photographs are likely to be crushed in Court, and even have
their businesses closed down.

Copyright violation may be treated as a serious crime, as well as a civil wrong.

David L. Amkraut is a Los Angeles-based Attorney at law. His practice emphasizes
cutting-edge Internet-related copyright matters, especially cases involving
photographs. He was attorney for the Plaintiffs in Louder v. CompuServe, a
class-action case involving publication of 930 photographs of models by the
2nd-largest Internet Service Provider in the world. Recently he served as
counsel in KNB v. Matthews, an important case about the relationship between
copyright and the "Right of Publicity." He has repeatedly obtained judgments in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars and represents some of the best-known
glamour photographers against web sites which infringe their work.

Email: Fax: (818) 637-7809
Mail: Law Offices of David L. Amkraut 2272 Colorado Blvd., #1228 Los Angeles, CA

© 2000 David L. Amkraut – All rights reserved. Permission granted to reproduce
this document provided the document is reproduced in its entirety, including the
information about the author and his contact information, and this copyright
notice. Quotations for review, reportage, etc. are permitted as long as there is
proper attribution and full contact information as follows:

"From The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright, by Los Angeles Attorney David L.

Email: Fax: (818) 637-7809

Law Offices of David L. Amkraut 2272 Colorado Blvd., #1228 Los Angeles, CA

For those who do not steal and want more info on Internet laws
check the links below 🙂

Link’s to attorneys and sites that deal with internet copyright,trademark laws
also good to know how to protect yourself and laws that you might even yourself
be breaking and are not aware of.

 Adult Web Law
Description: AdultWebLaw provides Adult Website legal information, access to
legal forms, and links to Internet Law resources.The information on AdultWebLaw
is not legal advice – this website exists only to provide general information
and a starting point for further research.
Areas include Adult Website Legal Forms Online, Adult Website Legal Issues,
Adult Website Laws, On Line Legal Research and more.

Description: Association for the Protection of Internet Copyright WORLDWIDE is
dedicated to the continued education of Internet copyright law and enforcement
of such law through the co-operation of international, domestic, federal, state,
and local statutes, laws, and ordinances.
Membership is open to all who are concerned about copyright protection,
including photographers, distributors of images, video, film, literature and
other intellectual property, movie producers, musicians, record producers and
publishers, as well as websites concerned about copyright infringement.

 Available Copyright Website
Description: This portal provides real world, practical and relevant copyright
information for anyone navigating the net. Copyright your online assets –

Cyberspace Law and Free Speech

Description: A number of good articles and Written Testimony on Free Speech
issues and CyberSpace Law

  EFF "Intellectual Property Online: Patent,
Trademark, Copyright" Archive

Description: Extensive list of articles, legal reviews and resources covering
patent, trademark and copyright laws as they relate to the internet

Description: First Amendment law firm run by Lawrence G. Wlaters, Esq.
specializing in First Amendment Law/Censorship Issues,Content Evaluation, Media
Law, Gaming Law, Internet Law, Copyright & Trademark, Domain Name Disputes,
Privacy Litigation they also deal with the adult industry

Phone Sex & Fetish Fantasy with Sweet Princess Morgan