It seems Donna, Karen Reece, and Rick Abbott (DKR) of Needlework Designs on Demand aren’t happy to leave well enough alone. I thought they’d want to let my last article about them fade away into the archives, rather than call even more attention to it, but I was wrong.
After being dared by Rick to provide my factual and investigative evidence to you, I’ve actually been contacted since I did so by DKR demanding I remove that evidence (their email messages, to be specific). The text of their latest message reads as follows:
Heather,
This is our second request asking you to remove our copyrighted e-mails which we have not given you permission to publish.
A copyright ordinarily vests in the creator or creators of a work (known as the author(s)), and is inherited as ordinary property.
Unlicensed use or distribution of copyrighted works is illegal and may be considered a criminal act. Copyright law grants the exclusive right to use, copy, distribute, display and perform a copyrighted work to the owner of the copyright. The owner of the copyright is the only entity that may grant permission for anyone to use, copy, distribute, display and perform the work.
If one uses a screenshot of a copyrighted work without the proper license from the copyright holder, it is copyright infringement.
Since you, too, have been known to cry ‘copyright infringement’ by accusing others of copying your blog posts (which are PUBLIC) then you know you are in the wrong.
It doesn’t take very long to send a complaint to the DMCA via fax.
Needlework Designs on demand Management
(From the tone, the bullying, and the impersonal sign-off, my money’s on Rick as the author. Anyone else care to hazard a guess?)
First, why would I remove the evidence Rick himself insisted I provide?
Second, why would I remove evidence of specific statements made by DKR, which, if acted upon, could be considered a crime and prosecuted as such? More importantly, why would I remove evidence of specific actions taken by DKR which might already be considered criminal? Removing this legal evidence would mean I would incur personal liability if DKR were ever charged or prosecuted, and while their being charged, much less prosecuted, is an unlikely proposition, I’m still entirely unwilling to take on such liability. It is my LEGAL OBLIGATION to leave the evidence exactly as it is, where anyone who might wish to research DKR can readily find it.
The fact is, DKR only want me to remove the EVIDENCE in order to hide their own wrongdoing. I will not be party to helping them possibly bilk either the designers they purport to help, or the stitching public they claim to serve, nor will I sacrifice my own reputation at their expense for any reason.
If they are so ashamed of what they said in the emails archived here on INN that they wish they could take them back (so that they would not have been archived here), then they need to — FINALLY — do the right thing. That is to step up to the plate and take both accountability and complete responsibility for their own actions and their own mistakes. DKR need to apologize sincerely to both designers and stitchers alike. Nothing less will do, and I think they know this as well as all the rest of us do. They just haven’t been big enough to make that apology yet.
For whatever reason (okay — it’s because I still think Karen is a voice of reason among the three), I still have hope for them and their new venture yet. But it’s the last little bit of hope I can muster for them.
I’d be more than happy to publish such an apology, by the way — but they’ve made no attempt to post to INN since Rick’s last comment got him into this situation in the first place. Too bad for them. They could be using INN as a resource. Instead, they are still playing childish and irresponsible games.
(For your information, no one has made any attempt to post in support of them either, and I have so far approved every comment submitted regarding the discussion revolving around DKR.)
Not that I would remove anything I have already printed, mind you. But I think almost all of us agree that taking responsibility for one’s own actions and owning up to one’s own mistakes can go a LONG way toward remedying a problem, no matter how insurmountable that problem might seem.
Third, I am giving full credit to the authors of the material, and not attempting to steal that material from them. My use of their emails falls under fair use. I am not “performing” their work, but rather have archived it as LEGAL EVIDENCE — and it should be noted that I did so only at Rick’s behest. Had he not made his demand, I would not have bothered writing the article at all. That he does not like the results is not a proper, ethical, or legal reason for him to require me to remove exactly that which he insisted I provide.
DKR are completely misconstruing both the context and the intent of copyright law, and are, in fact, trying to use it to corrupt the law.
It’s really a sordid state of affairs that they try to use copyright law in their own defense when the initial problem was that they STOLE someone else’s trademarked company name — and then they couldn’t even bother to come up with a truly original name when they finally did (to some degree, at least) back down and decide to move to a “new” name and a new domain.
And what if DKR had not done anything morally, ethically, or legally questionable … Would they then have any claim to ask me to remove their emails? The answer is still, “No.”
Remember, their emails were PUBLIC. Anyone could read them if they had DKR’s Yahoo Group information. That’s why when you look at any of their archived emails, “Messages” is shown as a Hyperlink in blue, while all the other options (Post, Files, Photos, Links, Database, Polls, Members, Calendar, Promote) are grayed out and available to “Members Only.” Regardless of their intentions, DKR’s messages were NOT private; their messages were public.
Independent Needlework News is a NEWS source. INN is no different than any other news source, except for the subject matter on which I focus. I do my best to conduct myself professionally — just like the reporters for CNN or any other professional news source try to conduct themselves. In looking at stories with a different subject matter which have been reported by the news media including CNN, all the major print media, all the major networks, and so on, a consistent pattern emerges of making public exactly the type of information I have made public — and this kind of publicizing is frequently done for far less honorable reasons than my own reasons in this case. I am simply doing what all good reporters do — printing my story and providing my proof.
Do you recall this very recent case? A principal did not cancel school on a day which might otherwise have been called a snow day by someone else. A student found the principal’s phone number listed in the phone book, or with Information, and called the principal. The student left a message for the principal criticizing his decision not to cancel school. The principal’s wife returned the telephone call and left a message on that student’s answering machine. The student apparently made the principal’s wife’s answering machine message available over YouTube, and it became what is called a viral Internet message. Her message was fairly heated, the blogosphere discovered it and gave it enough attention that the news media noticed it, it was replayed over and over again in the news media (along with the transcript being printed onscreen), and the entire story garnered a huge amount of attention in the news media — just look at all the hits a Google search for it results in to see all the different news agencies (online only, television, and newspaper) who reported the story. No matter what you thought of this story (which you had to be totally out of the loop to miss, in which case you probably don’t know Heath Ledger passed away either 
), the point is that neither the principal nor the principal’s wife could stop the tide — or cry foul over something they initially thought private being exposed to the entire world by the news media.
There are numerous other examples. There have been any number of cases in the news about emails which, once sent, the sender wishes he or she could take back. These cases involve all kinds of email subject matter from negative comments made about one’s boss or one’s employer, Dear John letters, and even emails in which someone writes about a successful (or unsuccessful) sexual escapade with the recipient — in all of these cases, the message generally comes back to haunt the sender.
When you send an email, you’d better be certain the recipient is someone you can trust if you’ve written anything you wouldn’t want to see on the evening news because once it’s out there, the damage is already done. I’m pretty sure there isn’t a single one among us who can say this has never happened to them. I’m no exception, but I learned my lesson. I don’t share news by email with groups of people anymore. Keep in mind, too, this was GOOD news when I sent my email — but it still came back to bite me in the behind — and I never did learn which of my fifteen or so “trustworthy” Internet friends let the cat out of the bag. More than likely, whoever it was (and it might well have been more than one person) only shared the “secret” with a handful of people she thought she could trust, and only because she wanted to share the good news, rather than to cause the whole thing to fall through. But at this point, it doesn’t matter because … you guessed it: the damage is done. So, yeah, I had my say in my personal blog when I was angry and not taking responsibility for my own mistake that caused the whole problem … but this is now, and I’ve moved on and learned my lesson from that little episode.
In the world we all live in, the one with camera phones, IPODs, answering machines, etc., etc., etc., along with the blogosphere which often carries breaking news stories faster than the mainstream news networks, there is very little such thing as privacy anymore. If you say it or write it anywhere that it can be recorded, then you should expect that it not only IS being recorded, but that it might be used against you. In today’s world, we must always think before we speak or type. Once we put it out there, we can’t take it back.
So far, DKR are handling this situation as if they’d accidentally passed gas in public. Although everyone else knows DKR are the ones who made the awful stink in the room, DKR thought they’d been really silent and sneaky about things, so they are still trying to pretend they aren’t responsible, which only makes them look foolish because we already all know they’re responsible for the bad smell.
DKR need to have their say, too — but that say needs to be an APOLOGY to everyone for their lies. Afterward, perhaps we can all move on, and perhaps we can all do so with a clean slate. I’m certainly willing to try if they’re willing to take accountability for their actions.
[tags] copyright, Rick’s Charts, Stitch A Painting, Art of Stitching, Deanna’s Designs, infringement, Needlework Designs On Demand, Rick Abbott, Karen Reece [/tags]
). The other will be both the pattern and everything you need to stitch it (thanks to generous donations from Zweigart and Gentle Art Sampler Threads!) — a prize worth over $100! Jen has also hinted there may be even more prizes for contestants who put in good efforts in the contest — and as Funk & Weber Designs have always been very, very generous in their support for the Online Needlework Show (make note: the next show begins September 24th!), I’m personally guessing Jen will be sending out more than just two prizes because giving is in her nature. 
In Response to “Susy”
Thursday, February 28th, 2008This issue is happening too frequently for me to continue ignoring it, or responding just in comments. Perhaps my regular readers will have guidance on how best to handle this — or even encouragement that I’m handling it properly already (checks and balances are always a good idea
).
Some people think they have the right to attack whatever they please here on Independent Needlework News — and also that they can be as cruel as possible when doing so. They rarely use a valid email address when they do.
So far, I’ve always approved their comments.
“Susy’s” comment is the most recent example. I have no confidence “Susy” is her actual name, especially as it’s a misspelling of both “Susie,” and “Suzy,” and as her email address, stitchashash@yahoo.com, is both nonsensical and fake.
Of course, I never hear from these particular individuals at any other time (or, at least, not under the names they choose to use when criticizing me). Clearly, these are people who are happy only when they are tearing others down and being mean; they aren’t interested in promoting the stitching industry in any way by lifting others up, or by making anyone feel good by thanking them for what they do.
Perhaps I shouldn’t bother approving their comments at all — and there is certainly no requirement that I do so. What do you all think? Is a change warranted here? Should I email everyone back and not print comments from people who enter invalid email addresses? Should I do something else?
Sadly, since it would resolve the problem, these whiners (who may well be just one or two people writing in under a different fraudulent name and email address every time) never make good on their threats to stop reading INN. They’re either lying about how boring they find me, or they actually get substantial benefit out of my other articles.
In any case, I’m tired of the nastiness they think they can throw at me just because I own and write a site called Independent Needlework News. The fact is, I’m tired of all the nastiness within the needlework world, period, and I’ve already vented about this in my personal blog once — with some lovely results in terms of one person, by the way.
Writing INN takes a LOT of time — time which takes away from my stitching, and time which I put in out of the goodness of my heart. I kept encountering so many stitchers saying that with the advent of the Internet, they were doing more researching of their stitching hobby online than actual stitching, and as someone with the same experience, I wanted to do something to change that … which is how INN was eventually created.
Generally, INN has met and even far exceeded my expectations. Sharing my finds with other stitchers has been rewarding, and many of you stitchers are in return bringing things to me to share with others. Overall, this has meant I am getting more time to get back to my own stitching — after “dashing off” a quick informative article or a few articles for everyone else.
I know I’m verbose; that’s just my style. When a teacher in school said s/he wanted an eight to ten page paper, my worry was usually how to edit it down to ten pages, rather than how to get it to at least eight. I’m not going to apologize to those of you who find my writing too long or too boring because you know what? First of all, you can skim it. If that doesn’t work for you, then, if you hate it so much, you can go somewhere else for the information. Belittling me says far more about you than it does about me. You’ve either got to admit you’re getting something out of it, or that you are CHOOSING to waste your time, but you can’t blame me as the problem. I’m not going to let you make me feel small just because you’ve made the choice to read what I write. Grow up and take responsibility for your own actions. Either recognize the benefits you’re getting, or the fact that you can’t look away for whatever reason, but stop your complaining — or go away. I’ve had it with your nonsense, and I’ve got better things to do — like stitch, for starters.
As for “Susy’s” argument, I stand 100% by what I said in my article, Missing the Gift. When Kirsten Edwards has done all the incredibly hard work to turn The Gift of Stitching magazine and thegiftofstitching.com into a profitable business over a period of two years, snatching it out from under her the second it’s (temporarily) available is nothing other than STEALING. I firmly believe someday the laws will start catching up to the technology, but until then, I (along with a handful of other ethical individuals) will speak up for what I believe is right. Just because something is possible, or even because the current laws don’t specifically address it, does NOT make it proper or ethical to actually do, nor does it indicate that it should be legal.
There are a multitude of reasons why the renewal may have slipped by Kirsten. I can well imagine, as my life has been absolutely crazy over the past six months, and so I’ve experienced a multitude of possible reasons myself for missing such an important occurrence. (And, no, I haven’t received any reminders from my hosting service about renewals … I’ve only received the bills. Email is notorious for going missing, even with being able to check SPAM mailboxes, etc.) What if Kirsten changed hosting services sometime in the middle of the past two years (which I am currently considering doing myself because I am not entirely happy with my current hosting service)? What effect would that have on these supposed reminders “Susy” assumes Kirsten received and overlooked? Would a new service really remind her of deadlines created under the initial hosting service? I certainly don’t have the answers for these questions, which are all speculation to begin with — and my point is that I know “Susy,” who doesn’t have these answers any more than I do, is making a lot of completely unsupported assumptions which she is then using to judge Kirsten very unfairly.
Perhaps someday, “Susy” will learn her own hard lessons by going through a similar experience … and if that happens, she’ll be surprised to find, even though she’s been a complete nincompoop to me during this current situation, I’ll still support her right to a URL and corresponding business name if she purchased it and put months or even years of work into it.
That’s because my beliefs don’t change based on what is convenient to or for me — though I suspect “Susy’s” probably are malleable based on what’s convenient to or for her (that’s called hypocrisy, by the way).
More importantly, unlike “Susy,” I’m not going to pretend I’m perfect or could have done any better than Kirsten did, and especially not when Kirsten is already working her behind off putting out one of the most fantastic stitching magazines EVER to hit the market — and doing so EVERY SINGLE month, with every month’s issue only better than the last. I can understand very easily how Kirsten could have missed the reminder emails “Susy” says she must have received, what with everything else I know Kirsten has going on, and it doesn’t take much for me to accept that Kirsten has a lot more going on than I’m even aware of, too, so I’m entirely willing to be open-minded about the situation. And the point is that Kirsten put all the work into thegiftofstitching.com … and whoever it is that snatched it out from under her as soon as it was TEMPORARILY available is nothing more than a thief who is taking advantage of her in my book. (Oh, and INN? It’s MY book.
)
I readily admit I am human and struggle as valiantly as I can daily to make some semblance of worth out of my life. I CHOOSE to make MY business here on INN not just one of showing sensitivity toward others in such a position, but also one of trying to lift up and promote this business and those in it who aspire tirelessly — and ETHICALLY — toward making wonderful products available to all of us stitchers.
A “business” which makes its living off of others’ misfortunes, or even off just their short term delays in being able to complete their obligations, is not one I consider honorable — and I’m not afraid to say so. I put a “business” like this in the same category as I do most lawyers, most doctors, political lobbyists, drug company representatives, and insurance companies. Just because something is “current business practice” or even currently legal does NOT mean it is ethical, proper, honorable, or moral — and this situation is most certainly one of those where what may be legal is NOT what is ethical.
I will not apologize for saying these things or be made to feel small by people like you, “Susy,” who make it your business in life to be cruel to others and to open your mouth up only to show you cannot think a situation through and thus to make a complete fool of yourself.
I’ll also never make any apology for repeating myself when it comes to trying to hammer home the point of why it’s important to be ethical and follow such laws as copyright laws. Simply by your comment, “Susy,” you prove that it is important for me to continue repeating myself on these issues.
Well, there you go, “Susy” … a whole post just for you. If you’d kept your mouth shut, maybe you wouldn’t be so bored right now. Don’t even bother replying, by the way … I’ve already decided that you, with your fake email, can go climb a tree.
Tags: , comments, copyright, ethics, Independent Needlework News, INN, Kirsten Edwards, morals, The Gift of Stitching, thegiftofstitching.com
Posted in Administration, Can You Help?, Copyright and Needlework, Heather's Favorite Posts, Posts Containing Information about Heather | 9 Comments »