OK - the final comment I will make on this matter.

For those not aware, there are several landmark legal cases to support our position.

Reported 30 April 2010, Google was taken to the Supreme Court by an artist who had uploaded her photos onto her website, and Google had reproduced these in their image results.  Their position was one under the fair use doctrine.

The Supreme Court ruled that this was NOT copyright infringement.  This was in Europe.

In 2007 in the USA, Google also won a landmark case exactly the same in nature, also regarding the use of thumbnails. In this case the plaintiff had a stroger case in that the images Google were displaying were actually for sale by the site from where they had been indexed.

I think the point is clearly made.

So, since links do clearly appear on our results pages, we are happy to engage in construtive discussion about the best use of the services we offer, and what other services may be included/enhanced.

I'm certain that by now our position is quite clear.

You see, we do this professionally, full time - not in some small bedroom with curtains closed.

So, since links do clearly appear on our results pages, we are happy to engage in construtive discussion about the best use of the services we offer, and what other services may be included/enhanced.

It's always interesting to witness mass psychology - jumping on the bandwagon, whatever you choose to call it.

You are still avoiding the real issue, which is the fact that your claim to using Google indexing to obtain photographs and mobile numbers from Adultwork has been proved to be lies. I notice you have not replied to Anika's post yet and in the meantime decided to take yet another patronising swipe at one of our members. It is not for you to dictate the direction of this thread, and you ought to be aware that you are on borrowed time as it is.

Considering that Slick's directory is one of the most popular, respected and well used sites in the UK, as well as being the starting point for SAAFE a good few years ago, your ridiculous pot shots show once again your total lack of industry knowledge - what earthly difference do you think it makes how and where a directory site is run from, curtains or no curtains? The sites we all know, value and get the majority of our website hits from could be and probably are run from a corner of the owners garage for all we know, but we don't care because ourselves, our images and our information are treated respectfully by people who listen to what we want.

You can spout tech-drivel all you want to try and impress people, but if these snide remarks continue your account will be deleted. Believe me, the only reason you are still posting is because I and others were hoping you might actually answer some of the points put to you and were prepared to give you the opportunity to do so, but if you are going to ignore them there is no point in your presence here; this is a support forum and not a place for you to tout your crappy site and post childish digs at others. If you are going to try to be condescending, it helps an awful lot to be in a position from which to condescend.

To be honest, I am even beginning to wonder whether this whole thing is a massive wind up. I don't believe I have ever come across anyone so insufferably pleased with himself, and for so little reason. As has now been said repeatedly (and spare me the tech/link/indexing rubbish) why are you insisting on advertising people who have told you repeatedly that they do not want you to, and ignoring their request to remove their contact details from your site?

I want it and my phone number removed from your site (leave the link if you want, I couldn't care less), and it seems that other ladies feel likewise. Is that polite enough for you?

What don't you at Bestescorts not understand? If an escort has asked you not to link her details, photos whatever, have some respect and remove it!

I think you've heard what those who have found themselves on your site want. To be off of it. Are you concerned enough to remove them?

A straight answer to a question that has now been put several times will do you far more good than any more arrogant blustering about how great you are and how we should be happy to have access to your brilliant site. Why not try it?

These people are so rude!

I emailed politely asking for my profile to be removed from their site. The reply was 'No'. It's a total utter piss take - I'm running a business and I alone shall decide where I place my details.

Stealing profiles from well known sites is bad business practice. I'm asking you once again, only in public this time Bestcorts - Can you delete my profile from your site. Please.

If you spent half the time marketing your site correctly as you do copying and stealing profiles - I'm sure you'd be rather successful. 

OK - the final comment I will make on this matter.

For those not aware, there are several landmark legal cases to support our position.

Reported 30 April 2010, Google was taken to the Supreme Court by an artist who had uploaded her photos onto her website, and Google had reproduced these in their image results.  Their position was one under the fair use doctrine.

The Supreme Court ruled that this was NOT copyright infringement.  This was in Europe.

In 2007 in the USA, Google also won a landmark case exactly the same in nature, also regarding the use of thumbnails. In this case the plaintiff had a stroger case in that the images Google were displaying were actually for sale by the site from where they had been indexed.

I think the point is clearly made.

So, since links do clearly appear on our results pages, we are happy to engage in construtive discussion about the best use of the services we offer, and what other services may be included/enhanced.

I'm certain that by now our position is quite clear.

So you don't actually have a very expensive attorney's opinion then? Counsel's opinion would of course run to a good few pages outlining legislation, caselaw and clear argument giving context and, where appropriate analogous evidence.

Your *cough* attorney merely appears to have used Google to find a few cases that may or may not fit your position.  Perhaps he/she lives in a small bedroom with his/her curtains closed. 

Why don't they just stop being such w?%kers and do as we ask? I'm seething.

Here is a link that provides all the information what has to be done to solve this issue. http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p05_copyright_infringement . I suggest first made a short date on which the profile must be removed, have a copy of the email that you had sent and the reply, if it will be not removed the follow the next step 

Since the site is hosted in the US, (and if the party responsible's bizarre language is anything to go by, so is he) the content would not necessarily be covered by the UK laws, and instead the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, a US statute. There is more information about this here on the main site.

It is also worth pointing out that only a copyright owner can take action - I own the copyright of my pictures because I took them, but this is often not the case and is another good reason to make sure you obtain the rights to your images on a signed document.

I am on that site and the only contact I have had from anyone is spammers trying to get me to pay them for a website and/or photos. It is the ONLY site I am on that I do NOT get work from, infact I do not even get enquiries from there.
I have checked my webpage analytics and get no visits from there either
I honestly cannot see it working at all as it looks cheap and tacky and hardly even ever work on IE. I always have to drop to firefox to get further than the entry page.