FTC Goes After Notorious Revenge Porn Site

The FTC did a press release on January 9, 2018 announcing that in unison with the State of Nevada they have charged the parties responsible for the website with violating federal and state laws. Of course, we are extremely happy about this news. MyEx hit the internet in 2013 and quickly became a popular revenge porn site where visitors of the site could upload private images of victims along with their name and sometimes even their address. At any given time, the site had at least 15,000 victims posted to their site without permission. To make matters worse, the site owners were extorting money from victims who requested that their images be removed from the website. Over the years they changed the payment information in an effort to elude law enforcement. They definitely knew what they were doing was illegal. The following is the press release announcing the charges against those involved.

The Federal Trade Commission and the state of Nevada have charged the parties responsible for a revenge porn site with violating federal and state law by posting intimate images of people, together with their personal information, without their consent. One of the defendants has agreed to a permanent ban on posting intimate images without consent.

In a complaint filed in federal court, the FTC and Nevada charged that the website,, is dedicated solely to revenge porn and has solicited intimate pictures and videos of victims, together with their personal information such as their name, address, employer, and social media account information. The site urged visitors to “Add Your Ex,” and to “Submit Pics and Stories of Your Ex.” In numerous instances, the defendants allegedly charged victims fees from $499 to $2,800 to remove their images and information from the site.

“ uses reprehensible tactics to profit off of the intimate details of individuals’ private lives,” said Acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen. “People who were featured on this site suffered real harm, including the loss of money they paid to remove intimate images and personal information, loss of jobs, and being subject to threats and harassment.”

According to the complaint, visitors to can rate the videos and pictures they see and post comments about the victims. At various times, the site included victims’ full date of birth, personal email address, telephone number, and links to social media profiles, along with the intimate images.

The FTC alleges that the defendants were aware that many of the individuals did not agree to having their intimate images and personal information posted to As of December 2017, there were approximately 12,620 entries on the site, according to the complaint.

Many individuals suffered serious harm because of the defendants’ conduct. In addition to experiencing direct financial loss by paying fees to the defendants, the complaint asserts, among other things, that individuals lost their jobs and received threatening and harassing emails and social media messages.

The complaint names EMP Media, Inc., Aniello “Neil” Infante, Shad “John” Applegate, also known as Shad Cottelli, and one or more unknown parties doing business as Yeicox Ltd. The FTC alleges that the defendants’ practices constitute unfair acts or deceptive practices in violation of the FTC Act. In addition, Nevada alleged that the defendants’ conduct constitutes a deceptive trade practice under Nevada law.

The Commission, together with Nevada, has approved a proposed settlement with one of the defendants, Neil Infante. Infante served in various corporate roles, including President of EMP Media Inc. Under the settlement, Infante is banned from posting intimate images and personal information of others on a website without notice and consent; required to destroy all such intimate images and personal information in his possession; and banned from charging individuals fees for removing such content from a website. He is also permanently restrained from serving as an officer or director of any business unless he has knowledge of the ordinary operations of that entity. Finally, he has agreed to a $205,000 judgment, which the order will suspend upon payment of $15,000 in light of his inability to pay more. The payment received will be used to provide redress to individuals who paid him take-down fees.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint against EMP Media (doing business as, T&A Media and Internet Secrets) and its officers Infante and Applegate, and one or more unknown parties (doing business as Yeicox Ltd.) and the proposed settlement with Infante was 2-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

Her nude photos leaked online. Now she’s fighting back

fighting back

What is revenge porn? It’s “non-consensual pornography that is distributed online to shame, exploit or extort its victims.” Basically, it’s sharing other’s nude photos online for your own selfish reasons. It’s an epidemic that ruins lives; however, it is often overlooked by the general populous as well as the government. But that’s all about to change.

Leah Juliett, A student, is campaigning to end revenge porn after she fell victim to the cruel practice – which is illegal in some states – when she was just 14 years old.

Leah Juliett, now 20, was devastated when a boy she was communicating with shared naked pictures of her with their entire school and online.

The traumatic experience left the New York-based poet, actor and activist feeling alone, vulnerable and too scared to report it.

She sent 4 revealing photos to a male classmate who was unsatisfied with the photos as he wanted ones that “clearly showed her genitals.” Juliett declined to send more photos. As a form of revenge, her classmate uploaded the photos online without informing her.

She found out a couple months later when her lab partner pulled out his phone and showed her her nude photos; the same ones she sent to her male classmate months before. Her lab partner then proceeded to tell her that “every guy on the football team had them,” Juliett recalled in an interview with CNN.

“He told me that he was going to ruin my life and he proceeded to send my pictures around, although at the time I didn’t know. I didn’t find out until people started telling me they had seen the photos.”

The pictures also appeared on a website which kept being re-posted in different online locations.

Juliett was so frightened of the potential consequences of the images that she started to extricate herself from extra-curricular activities.

Juliett created a March Against Revenge Porn that was held in N.Y.C on April 1. The March’s goal was to “create a community for victims and allies, develop a platform for the voice of revenge porn victims, fight to criminalize revenge pornography at a national level, and educate young people about their cyber civil rights.”

Forget being a victim. What to do when revenge porn strikes – CNET

The Internet is a terrible place sometimes, but thankfully there are now organizations that can help people who become victims.

When illicit photos of Anisha Vora began showing up online, she didn’t know what to do. She contacted Facebook, Twitter and other companies hoping they’d do the right thing and take the photos down. But soon, there were too many places for her to deal with on her own.

What happened to Vora happens to all sorts of people. Students, college graduates and professionals. People have lost their jobs because photos were published online without their consent. Most of the victims are women, though not all.

As the threat of revenge porn has grown, companies, organizations and even lawyers have sprung up to help victims.

Figure out the size and scope of the problem

The moment your photos begin circulating online, it’s easy to get overwhelmed. You’ve been violated, and suddenly your name, phone number, address and naked images are being published on sites around the Web.

If someone posted these images to Facebook, Twitter or another reputable site, it’s relatively easy to report the images and begin the process of asking the sites to take them down. Read More…


What happens when you report a post to Facebook. Mark Hobbs / CNET Read the rest

Attorney Mark Keaton Who Posted Revenge Porn Gets Disbarred

Attorney Mark Keaton, a nightmare human being, was disbarred from practicing law in Indiana last week because he systematically harassed, threatened, stalked, and distributed naked pictures of his ex-girlfriend over the course of six long years.

Keaton’s disbarment papers tell a very grim story that serve as a good reminder: ladies, get a restraining order the moment you start to feel threatened!

In 2005, Keaton, then married and 41, started an affair with his teenage daughter’s 19-year old roommate, “JD.” When they broke up in 2008, Keaton started calling JD obsessively and leaving voicemails, which sounded like this:

“Call me the fuck back! I don’t know who the fuck you think you are. But I’ll tell you what, you better fucking call me fucking back now! You fuck with me one more time and this time you’ll really fucking pay for it! And you need to think about it! Now you fucking quit fucking with me! I fucking deal with your fucking illness so fucking long, don’t fuck with me another fucking day! Not another fucking day! You return my call right now!”


“You make the decision to ignore me for the next hour, and I will make a decision that allows me to express my fury…Call me! . . . This is the last opportunity you have to avoid a catastrophe.”

JD presented the court with 90 other similar voicemails left by Keaton. During the couple’s relationship, Keaton borrowed $8,000 from JD, then a teenaged law student. When JD asked for the money back to cover her college expenses, Keaton said he we would only pay her back if she continued to communicate with and meet him.

Read the rest of the story rest of the story on Jezebel.comRead the rest

Kansas City man gets 18 years for threatening to post teen’s nude photos

Dennis Aguilar

A Kansas City man who admitted he threatened to post nude photos of a 16-year-old girl if she wouldn’t have sex with him was sentenced Tuesday in Platte County Circuit Court to 18 years in prison.

Denis Aguilar, 23, pleaded guilty in February to attempted child enticement and attempted statutory sodomy for the threats he made in April 2014.

According to court records, the victim and her mother alerted Kansas City police after Aguilar requested nude photos of the teen. After the girl sent him photos, Aguilar threatened to post them online, said Platte County Prosecutor Eric Zahnd.

The girl told investigators that she was on a social network website that she thought barred users over 18. The teen and Aguilar met on the website and began communicating through other social media sites, Zahnd said.

Aguilar told the girl he was 18 and repeatedly asked her to send him nude photos. She said she sent him a photo thinking he would “back off” and then stopped communicating with him. However, Aguilar continued to send messages to her and became angry when she wouldn’t respond.

He then threatened to post her photo if she didn’t send another nude photo. She sent a topless photo of herself and then he said he would post the pictures if she did not have sex with him, Zahnd said.

The victim allowed investigators to use her online identity. The detective soon began communicating with Aguilar.

Using the victim’s online identity, the detective portrayed himself as another girl, this one 14. Aguilar asked to meet the 14-year-old for sex.

They arranged to meet last June 25 at a McDonald’s restaurant in Kansas City, North. Police arrested Aguilar moments after he arrived.

Woman Sues Best Buy Over Photos on Revenge Porn Site

MT. CLEMENS, Mich. — A woman sued Best Buy, alleging employees obtained explicit photos of her from her cell phone and posted them on, once again putting the revenge porn site under fire.

Identified only as Jane Doe, the plaintiff said that she dropped off her phone at Best Buy to be repaired on March 22 and picked it up five days later.

When Doe awoke on the morning of April 5, she said found she had 67 new friend requests. By the end of the day, the number of requests reached more than 300. A friend called the plaintiff and told her she was on the website, the complaint says.

“Plaintiff went to the website, where she found the six suggestive photographs of herself, including a nude photo of her breast, which had been on her phone,” the complaint says.

The website’s owners, Eric Chanson, his parents and Kevin Bollaert, were not charged as defendants in the case. UGotPosted is at the center of several unrelated lawsuits, including at least two allegations of distributing child pornography.

Doe claims that the photos exist only on her phone and that the Best Boy employees invaded her privacy to retrieve them. She has accused Best Buy of negligence for allowing them to do it.

Doe is seeking damages, stating that the incident caused her depression, embarrassment, anxiety and loss of earnings. She is being represented by attorney Scott Batey.

UGotPosted and similar websites generally profit through aggregation and distribution of sexually explicit photos of unwitting men and women sent in by ex-lovers.

The photos are often accompanied by the victim’s personal information and links to their social media pages. On UGotPosted, pictures are organized by state. the rest

Get 2 DMCA Takedowns for $22 Limited Time Offer

2for22Need help with DMCA Takedowns?

Has Someone Stolen Your Content? Your Images? Your Work??

For a limited time we are offering 2 DMCA Takedowns for $22.

To take advantage of this offer, go HERERead the rest

Online Digital Content, Is Yours At Risk?

Is Someone Stealing Your Hard Work?

Is Someone Stealing Your Online Digital Content?

Today, our nation faces domestic and foreign piracy of a different sort: the illegal duplication of software, music, DVDs, and other digitized information. This piracy comes with a high price.

Your online digital content is at risk!

Last year U.S. copyright industries reported losses of nearly $22 billion due to piracy just from overseas.

Today, copyright owners are faced with the challenge of adapting to the digital revolution. The ease of making and distributing perfect copies of virtually every kind of work protected by copyright is putting strains on traditional modes of doing business. To stop thieves from stealing your work now, go —-HERE< ---- The growing tide of piracy both in traditional form—tapes, CDs and other hard copies—as well as in new modes of distribution—the Internet—continues to cost the content industries billions of dollars every year. To realize the potential of e-commerce for the distribution of all sorts of information products, from entertainment to education, from business software to databases for scientific research, providers must be confident that their products are safe from piracy. This development will enrich all of the participants: content providers, hardware and telecommunications providers and Internet users. Providing this security requires both technological and legal means to enable copyright owners to protect their works. It also means that these same technologies and laws need to recognize that fair use means that some uses that might otherwise be infringing will be permitted. To respond to these concerns and to adapt the copyright law to the digital environment, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a carefully balanced law to ensure that content owners would enjoy the protection they need to put their works on the Internet, and that appropriate fair use is maintained for consumers, scientists and educators. The inevitable progress of technology continues to present new challenges and opportunities. These developments include: peer-to-peer file sharing systems; broadband technology; webcasting, and the expansion of the Internet into every corner of the world. The issues raised for the content community by these developments include topics like the application of the fair use privilege to the digital reproduction and distribution of works; file trading systems; the application of the first sale doctrine to digital distribution, and technical protection measures and rights management. The fair use privilege is an important part of copyright law. This judge-made doctrine was first incorporated into the copyright law at the time of the 1976 general revision of the law. It has changed and evolved over time, in no small part due to the demands of changing technology. The net result is that the law now tolerates some degree of copying of works, including in digital form. Typically, this copying has been of a private nature, for the use of the copier and the immediate circle of friends and family. When dealing with paper copies or even analog copies on tape, the commercial impact of this sort of copying has been minimal. Indeed some studies have indicated that such copying may sometimes be commercially beneficial to copyright owners. Thus, traditional fair use achieved a careful balance to enable owners of copies of works to use them for personal purposes and in ways that did not unduly harm the interests of copyright owners. Digital copying and Internet distribution, however, significantly changed that balance. One simply cannot analogize the loading—or "ripping"—of a song or other work onto one's personal computer to making a tape-to-tape copy. The issue is much more complex because of the interconnectivity provided by the Internet. Once a song or E-Book is in digital form, it can be transmitted to anyone else connected to the Internet - be it one person or a thousand. The recipient gets a perfect digital copy with no degradation in quality, and the sender keeps his copy. And as the experience with peer-to-peer file distribution systems shows us, it can and possibly will be transmitted all over the world. Napster, Morpheus, Grokster, and others are examples of these systems on the Internet. Instead of computer files being stored on, and distributed from, large, centralized "server" computers—which is how most of the authorized music distribution systems work—these systems allow individuals to ask for and obtain copies of files from others' personal computers if those individuals are using the same system. The computer file travels from a "peer" (a person's PC) to another "peer" without having to reside in an intervening storage facility. In the United States, many see the Ninth Circuit's decision in the Napster case as affirming the view that when thousands or tens of thousands of copies are being made, it cannot reasonably be called "fair use" as we have traditionally understood it. The court made it clear that a for-profit business—even if it is not making any profits—which provides a system for wide-scale unauthorized copying of protected works is engaged in "commercial" activity that is not likely to be a fair use.••• It has been proposed that one who lawfully acquires a digital version of a copyrighted work should be permitted to pass that copy, without making another, on to a second person just as that person may now do with a "hard" copy of a work under the first sale doctrine, codified in Section 109 of the Copyright Act. We concur in principle with this interpretation of Section 109. There is, however, a significant difference between traditional acts of distribution and acts of digital distribution. In a traditional distribution, the work is reproduced and only subsequently distributed. In a digital distribution, the act of reproduction is an intrinsic part of the act of distribution. Because of the present limitations of digital technology and the difficulties in ensuring that the transmitting party had erased or otherwise destroyed the copy resident in the sending computer, there are serious reservations about the prudence of amending Section 109 to grant a blanket exception to digital distribution. It is important to note that general principles of fair use will be applicable to the distribution by digital transmissions of a work just as it is to the distribution of a "hard copy." Consequently, when considering all of the fair use factors, a court might decide that certain digital distributions of works were fair, particularly if the sending party erased the copy in the sending computer, without the need for amending the Copyright Act.••• Legislative proposals—supported by some copyright owners—that would require computer and electronics manufacturers to include copyright-protection technologies in their products has been the subject of considerable discussion. Supporters of such an approach have said that it could be promoted on the grounds that stronger copyright protection would spur the development of the Internet. The immediate impetus for the legislation stems from concerns that Hollywood studios are unwilling to broadcast movies on over-the-air digital television without consumers being able to copy them on digital recorders and upload them to the Internet. Sony Pictures Entertainment and Warner Brothers agreed to use so-called "5C" technology created by Intel, Matushita, Toshiba, Sony and Hitachi that includes watermarks on cable and satellite broadcasts. Disney and other studios have declined to sign on because the agreement does not cover over-the-air transmissions. They argue that legislation is necessary to address such broadcasts. Some content owners believe they need more protection than is already provided in the DMCA. Such an approach is highly unpopular with the computer and software manufacturers, and to a lesser extent with electronics manufacturers. I am told the Information Technology Industry Council, the Business Software Alliance, the Digital Media Association and the Consumer Electronics Association oppose such an approach. Many argue that providing appropriate protection for copyrighted works that are transmitted by digital technology is a prerequisite for the distribution of these products on the Internet, and for digital over-the-air broadcasts. Negotiations are presently underway among hardware manufacturers and content owners to develop improved means for protecting online content, which I believe would encourage creativity and promote the development of a broader range of services for consumers in the Internet and broadband technologies. Intellectual property has become increasingly vital to our nation's economic competitiveness, our standard of living, and our global security. IP industries represent the largest single sector of the American economy and employ over 4 million Americans. Copyright industries are creating jobs at three times the rate of the rest of the U.S. economy. Under the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, the under secretary of commerce for intellectual property is directed to advise the president, through the secretary of commerce, and all federal agencies, on national and international intellectual property policy issues, including intellectual property protection in other countries. The AIPA to provides guidance, conduct programs and studies and otherwise interact with foreign intellectual property offices and international intergovernmental organizations on matters involving the protection of intellectual property. In keeping with this directive, we continue to be active in a number of different venues to streamline and strengthen protection for IP. Through our office, we: help negotiate and work with Congress to implement international IP treaties; provide technical assistance to foreign governments that are looking to develop or improve their IP laws and systems; train foreign IP officials on IP enforcement; draft and review IP sections in bilateral investment treaties and trade agreements; advise the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on intellectual property issues in the World Trade Organization; and work with USTR and industry on the annual review of IP protection and enforcement under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The USPTO also serves as co-chair of the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council, which coordinates domestic and international IP law enforcement among federal and foreign entities. The goal in the international arena is to move toward greater consistency in intellectual property protection around the world. Just as the framers of the Constitution created standard intellectual property rules for the nation, there is work to be done to develop consistent rules for the rest of the world. With respect to copyrights, the work continues to bring copyright law in line with the digital age. Back in 1996, the USPTO led efforts to adopt the two WIPO "Internet treaties"—the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). Both treaties establish important new international norms related to the right to make a work available to the public through interactive media. They also provide for the protection of copyright management information and technological measures used to protect copyrighted works. As might be expected, a significant part of our international efforts at the USPTO are devoted to strengthening IP enforcement abroad and combating IP piracy. With the growing importance of intellectual property assets, the need for enforcement of these rights abroad has increased substantially. For example, IP protection is critical for U.S. exports, with more than 50 percent of our exports now dependent on some form of IP protection. Because American IP owners compete in a global marketplace, there is a need to expand efforts to promote IP protection internationally. There is a need to make sure that American IP owners and law enforcement authorities have sufficient legal tools to fight piracy. The bottomline is, there is much work left to do in order to protect the rights of those who create original works, and to keep those works from being distributed illegally. Let us help you protect your work, your money, your good name. Get started ---->HERE< ----

Know your rights!
Here is the link to the DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998.
———DMCA< ---------

Read the rest

DMCA Rights

Know your rights! Read about the DMCA Act


What is copyright?

Copyright is a form of legal protection automatically provided to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works.

U.S. copyright law generally gives the author/creator or owner of an original creative work an exclusive right to:

  • Reproduce (copy) or distribute the original work to the public (e.g., create and sell copies of a film)
  • Create new works based upon the original work (e.g., make a movie based on a book)
  • Perform or display the work publicly (e.g., perform a play)

Violation of one of these rights is called copyright infringement. However, the use may be authorized by copyright limitations (such as fair use) described below.

What types of works are protected by copyright?

  • Literary works
  • Music and lyrics
  • Dramatic works and music
  • Pantomimes and choreographic works
  • Photographs, graphics, paintings and sculptural works
  • Motion pictures and other audiovisual works
  • Video games and computer software
  • Audio recordings
  • Architectural works

What is not protected by copyright?

  • Unfixed works that have not been recorded in a tangible, fixed form (e.g., a song you made up and sang in the shower)
  • Work in the public domain (see below)
  • Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; numbers
  • Ideas and facts
  • Processes and systems (e.g., the Dewey decimal system)
  • Federal government works (e.g., the tax code)

If I have an idea in my head, is it automatically copyrighted?

No, ideas are not copyrightable. Only tangible forms of expression (e.g., a book, play, drawing, film, or photo, etc.) are copyrightable. Once you express your idea in a fixed form — as a digital painting, recorded song, or even scribbled on a napkin — it is automatically copyrighted if it is an original work of authorship.

Who owns the copyright?

  • Author/Creator
  • Author/Creator’s heirs if the creator is dead (living family)
  • Creators of a joint work automatically share copyright ownership unless there is a contrary agreement. (e.g., If two students write an original story together, they share the copyright.)
  • Anyone to whom the author/creator has given or assigned his or her copyright (e.g., an employer if the copyrighted work is created under a “work made for hire” agreement, a publisher or record company if the copyrighted work is given in exchange for a publishing or recording contract). Usually this means that the author/creator has given up his or her own copyright in the work.

Who owns the copyright in recorded music?

It depends. If a person writes a song and records it, that person is the creator and owns the copyright. But professionally produced music can have many copyright owners. For example, the copyright to a particular sound recording may be owned by the songwriter, the performer, the producer, a record label, a publisher, or a combination thereof.

When I buy music, either online or offline, do I get copyright in the work?

No, when you buy music, you own that copy of the music. If you bought a CD, you are allowed to sell that particular copy or make fair uses of it, but you don’t own a copyright in the music itself. If you bought a song on iTunes or other service, your ownership of it may be subject to certain restrictions.

When does copyright start? Do I have to register the work with the government?

Copyright status is automatic upon creation of your original creative work in a fixed, tangible form. Registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is not necessary for copyright status and protection, though registration is needed in order to pursue an infringement claim in court.

How do I formally register my original, creative work?

You can fill out the form and submit a filing fee at the U.S. Copyright Office website.

How long does copyright last?

  • For original works created after 1977, copyright lasts for the life of author/creator + 70 years from the author’s death for his/her heirs.
  • For “works made for hire” corporate works and anonymous works created after 1977, copyright can last from 95-120 years from publication.

Are there any copyright limitations?

There are several limits on copyrights. For example:

Fair Use allows the public to use portions of copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner. To decide whether a use is a fair use, courts look at four factors:

  1. The purpose and character of the second use: Is it just a copy, or are you doing something different from the original work? Is your use commercial?
  2. The nature of the original: Was the original work creative or primarily factual?
  3. Amount used: How much of the original work was used, and was that amount necessary?
  4. Effect: Did the use harm the market for the original work? For example, would people buy this work instead of the original?

First Sale allows a consumer to resell a product containing copyrighted material, such as a book or CD that the consumer bought or was given, without the copyright owner’s permission.

Public Domain works can be freely used by anyone, for commercial or noncommercial purposes, without permission from an original copyright owner/author. Public domain status allows the user unrestricted access and unlimited creativity! These works may be designated for free and unlimited public access, or they may be no longer covered by copyright law because the copyright status has expired or been forfeited by the owner.

What is licensing?

Licensing is when a copyright owner gives permission for someone else to do something normally restricted by copyright law. For example, the creator of a song may license a song to an advertising agency, allowing the ad company to use parts of her song in a television commercial in exchange for compensation.

Sometimes a creator may want to give everybody the permission to make copies of his or her work. For example, some musicians want fans to make copies and share their songs, so they license their songs in a way that gives others explicit permission to copy and share them.… Read the rest