Bless. RE, have you read this thread at all?
Oh, and if you steal original text or photographs and publish them without the copyright owner's permission, you are breaking the law. You are not a search engine, you are a directory - if you don't understand the difference I suggest you check the UK copyright and intellectual property laws. Whether or not you decide to link to or identify your source is completely irrelevant.
I do strongly suggest you don't steal content from Adultwork. They don't like it.
I agree that the UK does have laws against such actions. However our website is based in the USA and we are well in our right to operate it on a Fair Use Policy there for as a directory and escort review website we can report on escorts / agencies and coming soon we are implementing a black listed client and escort section. The blacklisted client/escort section will show usernames and information about clients that are to be avoided for obvious reasons.
You are wrong. I am the owner of the images and text on my website. If you steal my content it's copyright theft. C'mon....this is the basic stuff. You should know this! 
If I'm wrong could you please link to this Fair Use Policy that you'll be using in order to steal our details?
If you still think that copyright theft is perfectly legal please take a look here.
This is taken out of wikipedia ->
A US court case in 2003, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment, Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba's image search engine. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it is clearly covered under fair use.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favour of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. Firstly, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Secondly, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Thirdly, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement.
In August 2008 US District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania, who made a home video of her thirteen-month-old son dancing to Prince's song Let's Go Crazy and posted the video on YouTube. Four months later, Universal Music, the owner of the copyright to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video enforcing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks, not two weeks as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair-use of the song.
I am sure if you google fair use policy + internet you will get more stuff - if you want to read a government website here is a link ->
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
be sure to read all of them and you should get the gist fair use is mentioned as well.
Topic: How Not To Run A Directory Case Study 2: randyescorts.com (Read 10048 times)