INDEPENDENT NEEDLEWORK NEWS

This 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.

If you’re wondering what happened to The Gift of Stitching’s website, here is the official answer from editor Kirsten Edwards (initially posted on The Gift of Stitching Magazine Yahoo Group on February 24, 2008):

Hello everyone,

Well… this is very embarrassing and I’ve been up since 4am trying to fix the problem. Basically our domain thegiftofstitching.com has expired, we didn’t know it was going to and now we have to negotiate and buy it back from a parking domain business that likes to profit out of people wanting their expired domains back. OK, lesson learnt the hard way. Buy this domain back is going to take sometime - up to 2 weeks.

In the meantime we have bought www.thegiftofstitching.com.au and are currently working with the hosting company to get it attached to our account so we can get the website up and running again. This will take up to 72 hours to travel around the world and update all the servers. Hopefully most will see it in the next 48 hours. Keep coming back and press refresh to see if it has started to work.

Once the domain is working for me, I will be sending out extensive emails so all subscribers/retailers/designers so they know what is going on.

Thanks for your patience, I am really sorry this has happened. We are working as quick as possible to get this fixed.

Kind regards,
Kirsten

–
Kirsten Edwards
Editor
The Gift of Stitching
www.thegiftofstitching.com

In my opinion, this kind of thing should be illegal. It’s stealing, pure and simple — and stealing someone else’s name is about as low as one can go.

Let’s all hope The Gift of Stitching is soon back up and running — on both the old and the new websites. (The new website is already working for me, though I’ll have to re-figure out how to get my sidebar buttons, which seem to have disappeared with the WordPress upgrade, working again. However, the TGOSM button disappeared altogether from my personal blog, too … so that one needs redoing completely, I guess.)

Also, I would like to ask a personal favor of everyone who can spare a moment to say a prayer, send good thoughts or positive energy my way, or whatever you may call your form of hoping someone or some animal does well …

I mentioned in my last post that I’ve had a terrible cold, and it turns out I passed it on to five of our eight cats. Three are recovering nicely with the help of antibiotics, but two really need some extra assistance beyond that. Magic is probably going to be just fine, but we are extremely worried about Dumbledore. It is extra devastating for us that he is so sick because since he is deaf, he is very hard to comfort. We can only communicate with him through touch and vision, but he’s not really interested in looking at much right now, or in being cuddled. To make it even worse, it seems every time we do touch him, it makes him sneeze (which may actually be helpful in getting the crap out of his nose, but it makes us feel terrible … ).

We’re doing all we can, but we’re also supposed to head to Michigan first thing tomorrow (Monday) where I have a doctor’s appointment, and right now, we dread leaving him. I may try driving alone (even though my husband took two days off specifically to drive me because I’ve been having so much difficulty staying awake while driving — something which started after the kidney failure in November), or we may board Dumbledore (and maybe Magic) with the vet while we’re gone.

I can’t cancel the appointment because I have to maintain a good relationship with this Michigan doctor (and who knows how she’d feel about my not showing because of a sick cat), especially after having been terminated by my primary care doctor here (the one I thought was so good but it turns out he nearly killed me — yes, that’s right, he caused the kidney failure … and then he terminated me because he’s scared of making another major mistake) and being as yet unable to find a new primary care doctor (because every one I’ve seen so far looks at a 38-year-old woman who has had kidney failure — and has significant signs of permanent kidney damage as a result — as a malpractice case waiting to happen), but I must admit I’m very torn.

Leaving Dumbledore with the vet may be the worst thing for him, as he might feel we’ve given up on him. Right now, he is at least in comfortable, familiar surroundings with the other cats he knows and loves.

I really am not sure what to do. All positive thoughts are very much appreciated right now …

Here are pictures of Dumbledore and Magic at their best:

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.

Technorati Tags: copyright, Rick’s Charts, Stitch A Painting, Art of Stitching, Deanna’s Designs, infringement, Needlework Designs On Demand, Rick Abbott, Karen Reece

Once again, this post is specifically relevant to the designers already involved with, or contemplating being involved in, the new venture owned by Donna (of Stitch A Painting), Karen (of The Art of Stitching), and Rick (of Rick’s Chart’s), which I highlighted in my earlier posts, “Designers Wanted,” and “ATTN: All Designers Who Were Interested in ‘Designers Wanted’ Article.” (Donna, Karen, and Rick will be referred to from here on in this post as DKR.)

I have been challenged by Rick to provide you with even more factual information than I already have: “You should check the facts of your stories before you release them!” All right-y, then — here you go, Rick!

MY INVESTIGATION ~ FACT-CHECKING

When I initially tried to contact DKR on January 4, 2008 using the email address support@designsondemand.org, my message bounced back saying I needed to be part of a particular Yahoo group in order for my message to go through. This quickly led me to the discovery that DKR’s Yahoo Group was set up such that its messages are public. Thus, I can share with you their own words — their messages — as evidence.

Unfortunately for anyone who might be represented by DKR, their messages show a lack of professionalism or good judgment. It’s always best to watch what you say about others — especially in public. Burning bridges is generally ill-advised. Speaking negatively about current and — perhaps even more importantly — about potential colleagues, clients, or customers simply is not done by those with good business heads on their shoulders. Such behavior looks just plain bad, and when done in front of the whole world … well, there’s just one word for it: “Oops.”

These things are especially important when you’re just starting out and nobody’s heard of you. Otherwise, when you inevitably become yesterday’s news, you may wish the first impressions you’d left were different.

Further, DKR’s own Yahoo group messages prove the many inaccuracies and flat out falsehoods in DKR’s statement. I will focus on a few specific issues which exemplify this (even if it does require another article the length of a masters thesis).

THE BIGGEST LIE: DKR DID NOT SEEK LEGAL ADVICE

Rick, writing on behalf of DKR, makes several statements claiming to have sought legal advice regarding the domain dispute issue. He says, “Our legal advise [sic] tells us we would win this dispute if … ” Later, he continues, “In pure frustration I contacted a lawyer and showed him all our correspondence. He told me legally she can’t do anything about our site.” Further down the page, Rick states, “My legal advise in a nutshell is … ”

The problem is, Rick is lying. According to messages 819, 820, 824, 861, 866, 870, 932, 952, 959, 960, 983, 1004, 1013, 1020, 1022, and 1023, neither Rick nor any member of DKR sought legal advice. Rick, who lives in Australia, was on vacation in the Gold Coast of Queensland when the Scheperles contacted DKR about the trademark issue. (Not that he couldn’t perhaps have still sought legal advice while on vacation, but the fact is that he did not do so — as proved by his messages.) DKR emailed the Scheperles saying Rick would cancel his vacation in order to go see a lawyer, and also threatened the Scheperles would have to cover the cost of Rick’s plane tickets. DKR wrote several messages discussing what they would tell the Scheperles the attorney (the one Rick never saw and never intended to see) had said. DKR then actually DID send the Scheperles a letter advising them what their fake attorney — the one they never even telephoned! — had said. Right up until they sent that email, DKR had bad intentions, but a chance of redemption. However, as soon as they ACTUALLY sent the email, they had acted in what is called bad faith. Then DKR lied to all the world on their website, claiming not only to have received legal advice, but again making false statements about the content of that non-existent legal advice. The totality of DKR’s actions constitutes the legal definition of bad faith.

(Had DKR really sought legal advice from a flesh-and-blood attorney, they would have learned they were not the party legally in the right, and perhaps backed down much earlier — before they ended up looking so foolish as they now appear.)

WHAT IS BAD FAITH?

Bad faith is one of the elements the Scheperles would need to prove in order to get their original domain name dispute resolved through ICANN.

From InterNIC’s FAQ on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP):

In order to have the domain name transferred or cancelled, the trademark holder must establish (1) that he has a legally recognized trademark in a name that is identical or confusingly similar to the domain name; (2) that the current registrant of the domain name has no legitimate rights in the name; and (3) that there has been some evidence of bad faith or abuse.

The Scheperles’ trademark is identical to the domain name DKR chose, so the first element is met. DKR have no legitimate rights (meaning they have no trademark issues of their own which pre-date those of the Scheperles), so element two is met. Usually, element three is the hardest to prove because evidence of bad faith or abuse is often difficult to get. In fact, it’s often impossible to get when the infringing party really didn’t intend to infringe upon someone else’s trademark. (Of course, when that’s the case, the infringing party usually says, “Oops … Sorry … My bad … I’ll get another name … Just please don’t sue me!”)

However, in this case, thanks to DKR’s Yahoo Group’s public messages, the element of bad faith is EASILY proven — time and time again! Next to making their messages public, DKR’s biggest problem is that they never bothered to educate themselves on the legal definition of bad faith.

ANOTHER LIE

DKR also claim publicly on their website and in emails to the Scheperles, “We paid to have all our banners and graphics altered to try and please her.” This is another lie, and, by definition then, another example of bad faith. Per messages 824, 1037, 1038, and 1039, DKR actually did all the work on their website themselves (and they did very nice work very quickly, too). However, they purposely didn’t put pages online as soon as they could have because they didn’t want to give themselves away. They only claimed to have paid someone else to do it to try stalling the Scheperles from pursuing their legal rights to their trademarked name. DKR also conspired on several occasions about selling the designsondemand.org domain to the Scheperles for as much as $300 (after DKR had only paid $10 for it). To support this outrageous cybersquatting price, they contemplated claiming they had hired people first to design their logo and then to redesign it in order to meet the Scheperles requests. DKR also purposely delayed opening their new site at needleworkdesignsondemand.com — because they didn’t want people thinking it was too easy for them to make the transition (message 1202)!

LUDICROUS DEMANDS

Also in their diatribe, DKR wrote, “After adding the above link the blog entry that [sic] had not be [sic] approved for over 90 minutes … ” They then followed, “We will give her 8 hours to approve the comment.” They conclude with:

I am happy to report Heather has approved Karen’s response to another persons [sic] comment on Heather’s blog. All we are asking for is a fair chance to put our side to the public and now Heather is giving us that chance.

I must have missed the part about when DKR hired me to work solely for them, much less the part about what my assigned work hours are. I wasn’t even home on January 22nd for a period of about ten hours, and Rick’s comment arrived rather early during my day out, so there was no way I could have approved his comment and then removed it, as he claims occurred. I haven’t seen a job offer, a contract, or a paycheck, so I don’t know what gave DKR the idea I should be sitting by my computer waiting for comments from them to arrive.

Incredulously, DKR believed me to be so much under their control that they considered sending me an email threatening me with libel if I did not put back Rick’s comment (which I had not yet approved at that point, in reality).

The truth about my approving Rick’s comment is entirely different and, more importantly, completely innocuous.

ABOUT APPROVING RICK’S COMMENT ON INN

All comments submitted to INN are moderated to prevent SPAM. I am the sole moderator. Contrary to Rick’s apparent expectation and belief, I do not sit by my computer waiting for emails or comments from him (or anyone else) to arrive (and he thinks I’m the one with a big ego, LOL! It’s really too bad they didn’t put up the draft in which they said I am a legend in my own mind, don’t you agree?). I actually do have a life with other obligations to fulfill, so when Rick submitted his comment for approval at 2:20 p.m. central time (3:20 p.m. eastern time, as the date stamp on his comment shows) on Tuesday, January 22, 2008, I was not even home. I had left the house around noon, and I returned just after 9:30 p.m. So, it was not until after 9:30 p.m. my time that I even learned Rick had submitted a comment.

To test why Rick thought his comment had been approved and then unapproved, I logged out, then submitted a comment for approval myself. That comment appeared on the site just as it would if it had been approved, except it had a message next to it saying, “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” I believe Rick simply didn’t notice the message saying his comment was awaiting moderation (it’s easy enough to miss, in my opinion), and therefore thought his comment had already officially posted. When he checked the site later and the comment wasn’t there (because it still hadn’t been approved because I still wasn’t home), he then erroneously concluded I had removed it.

What really happened is that I approved Rick’s comment for the first and only time at around 10:00 p.m. central time. At the same time, I also approved murphtall’s message.

YOU DECIDE

These lies, along with the ridiculous demands and accusations, come from a group of three people who write as their concluding statement, “We, being Donna, Karen and myself [Rick] are the only ones who are being totally honest about everything … ” Unless their definition of honesty is relative, they are lying with that statement, too.

I’ve given you the actual evidence; now you can judge for yourselves.

WHY I PUBLISHED THIS ARTICLE

I tossed and turned over publishing this second article. I had already said quite a lot, and I wondered if that was enough. Unfortunately, not all news in the needlework world is positive. (The real shame here is that I could really use the assistance of someone with DKR’s — or specifically, I think, DK’s … don’t forget, Rick’s been on vacation — kind of talent designing websites here on INN, but I require a certain level of integrity they have not shown.) Had DKR not put themselves forward as pillars of honesty, I most likely would have simply let things drop after the first article, but to do so after they made such a public statement would have been to shirk my responsibilities to provide the designers I am here to support with the information they require in order to make informed decisions about their own businesses.

Of course, before you choose a company to market your designs, you should know with whom you’re dealing, and you should know as much about them as possible. You should not rely entirely on me for this information because I’m just one person who is already spread extremely thin. I cannot always devote the time needed to write a post this long — and how many of you care to read something this lengthy, anyway, even when the information is valuable? In any event, this post IS all needlework news, and that’s why I published it.

For my own stitching needs, I will go elsewhere as often as possible — which for me means that if a certain designer’s patterns are only carried through DKR’s venture, then I’ll probably go ahead and purchase them in order to support the designer (why punish the individual designer or myself ?). However, in general, although I wish them no ill will, DKR have shown me they do not deserve my hard-earned money (or my husband’s hard-earned money, ).

I trust you, dear readers, to take the information I have provided you with and either make up your own minds now or continue searching for more information before doing so. Whatever you choose, the decision is entirely your prerogative.

Ultimately what it comes down to for me is that the product I supply here on INN is my word, and my readers have come to trust that product. When I write something, it is reliable because it is what I research and thus believe to be the truth — or because if further research (mine or yours) indicates I have made an error and reported something inaccurately (or even when something I have written has not been said as well as it could be, and thus has come across the wrong way), I have worked very hard — and as quickly as possible — to correct the situation (just as any other reporter would). So my product — my word — is extremely important to me.

Thus, it was essential that I publish this article because once I had said designers should be wary of DKR’s venture, it became my responsibility to tell them exactly why they should be wary. It is because I am honest (even — or especially — when it means admitting my own mistakes), because I am willing to correct myself publicly, and because I am willing to publish something negative, that my readers do trust me and will continue to do so.

On a more positive note, I do want to add I am really glad DKR finally forked out another $10 to start Needlework Designs on Demand. Although I do personally believe they could have been more original when choosing their new name, and also that intentionally pushing the envelope with that new name (per messages 1125, 1128, 1130, 1136, and 1264) was at least a tad juvenile and ill-advised, I am also extremely pleased to report the Scheperles are happy with this outcome.

Still the fact remains it would have been far preferable for all parties involved if DKR would have simply taken these steps in the first place — as John Williams summarizes very intelligently and very succinctly (his succinctness is proof he is not me, despite what Rick thinks! ). Had DKR not been so obstinate about it, I might very well have offered to purchase the new domain for them because (1) I really DO believe their ideas for their new venture are good ideas, and (2) I really DO believe a lot of new and independent designers will benefit from marketing their designs in this manner.

However, all’s well that ends well — and even DKR can hardly complain when they’ve received so much free publicity (the old adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity actually is true), including for their new site, from the posts I have written.

I personally wish DKR the best of luck with Needlework Designs on Demand because I support the designers themselves, and I certainly hope that from now on, DKR will conduct themselves with the absolute utmost of integrity.

A few suggestions:

I hope they’ve not just considered but determined the full tax implications involved with this venture. With three countries involved just among the owners of Needlework Designs on Demand, things could become complicated very quickly, especially once profits go over that certain dollar amount which differentiates a hobby from a business (which is likely different in each of those three countries). Consulting with a tax accountant in whichever country this domain is actually registered, as well as the other two, is probably a really smart thing to do right away if DKR haven’t already done this. Individual designers will definitely want to make sure this tax issue is quickly addressed before it affects them — the last thing you’ll need is auditors from other countries coming after you because DKR missed a step in their excitement to get this venture off the ground.

DKR also still need to correct the email address on their About Us page (you’d think they would have made that correction the first time I posted about it, but I guess they aren’t reading that far down into my posts).

Finally, DKR need to make sure they change all their passwords, which have been exposed to the public through their Yahoo Group — eek! I also recommend they choose more complicated, and thus more secure, passwords in the future.

Since Rick has already stated DKR will not continue discussing this issue further, I also will no longer entertain further discussion about the matter. Therefore, comments to this article will only be approved if they add something new and of significant value to the already published conversation. I personally am curious to see if Rick, who appears to be the ringleader for DKR, will be true to his word, as he wrote in message 1074: “… if I make a mistake, or I am in the wrong I will admit it and try to make amends.”

Technorati Tags: Stitch A Painting, Rick’s Charts, Art of Stitching, Deanna’s Designs, trademark, copyright, infringement, needlework, cross stitch, intellectual property, DesignsOnDemand.org, Designs On Demand.org, common law trademark, TM, Needlework Designs On Demand, cybersquatting

Lots of designers have been asking what’s going on regarding the new venture proposed by Donna (of Stitch A Painting), Karen (of The Art of Stitching), and Rick (of Rick’s Chart’s), which I highlighted in my earlier post, Designers Wanted, while it was up very briefly on January 7, 2008. (That post is now back up — with some necessary corrections as required for truth in reporting/advertising — and as a point of reference for this post.)

Donna, Karen, and Rick, who will be referred to from here on in this post as DKR, opened this promising new venture which they intended to call “Designs on Demand” (but which they then briefly named “DesignsOnDemand.Org” before soon switching to its current title of “Designs On Demand.Org”), on January 15th, 2008. However, the designers involved with this venture or contemplating becoming a part of it may not be aware of the important behind-the-scenes events which have been the reason for those name changes — or, more importantly, that those name changes may continue.

Before I write any further, I want to make it clear I really do believe DKR’s new venture IS a VERY promising one — I am not using my words lightly here. They have many good ideas, and I believe this venture has a terrific chance to bring a large number of independent designers to the attention of stitchers worldwide — and that is a very good thing for both the stitchers and the designers (as well as the three masterminds behind this venture ). However, DKR have run into a very significant problem right at the start of their new venture. It is a problem which came to my attention shortly after I wrote “Designers Wanted“; it is a problem which could negatively impact any and all of the designers who are signed up with DKR’s venture; and it is a problem which DKR are, so far, either compounding, or attempting to ignore — or both.

I am still working on a more detailed post than this one (the one which you are reading right now, that is), but I would be negligent if I waited any longer to inform the designers who are already working with DKR, and any designers who are considering working with DKR, of the central issues in this situation.

DESIGNS ON DEMAND IS ALREADY TRADEMARKED BY SOMEONE ELSE!

The main problem is that DKR’s venture named “Designs on Demand” may not be in business all that long — or, I should clarify, not under that name, and possibly not at that dot-org website URL (http://designsondemand.org).

That’s because there is already another business named Designs on Demand — and THAT company has been in existence for nearly ten years. The LEGITIMATE Designs on Demand is a home-based, family-owned business whose focus is providing all kinds of promotional products (mugs, tote bags, calendars, ornaments, mouse pads, magnets, etc.), available in quantities from one to one thousand (or more!), with the artwork or photographs of their customers reproduced on those items for personal or advertising purposes.

One of their most popular products is the yellow ribbon magnet which includes a picture of an individual soldier. In fact, Designs on Demand customers have been followed by other people who wanted to learn where they could have their own personalized yellow ribbon magnets made!

Designs on Demand provides full-time employment for owners Margaret and Darrel Scheperle and supports both them and their four children, two of whom are in college. The Scheperles, who developed their business from the ground up, have not only filed US income taxes under this business name, but they have also filed for and received a certificate of organization for Designs on Demand from the state of Missouri. It is the Scheperles’ company who owns the PayPal name “Designs on Demand,” and the Scheperles have owned and used that PayPal account since 2000. Designs on Demand has been in business since 1998, and the Scheperles have held the dot-com website address http://designsondemand.com since 1999.

Even if the Scheperles were not already in the process of registering “Designs on Demand” as a registered US trademark (which no company HAS to do in order to still receive FULL legal protection under trademark laws; registration simply makes the results of that same legal protection easier to accomplish more quickly), they have certainly been around long enough that they definitely have more than adequate legal basis for “Designs on Demand” to be considered SOLELY their intellectual property as a COMMON LAW TRADEMARK — and all the applicable processes and laws to force DKR to choose another name are absolutely in favor of the Scheperles (which is only fair, of course — and isn’t it great that something in life is actually fair? ).

So, to sum it up, NO ONE ELSE can use the name, “Designs on Demand” at all — certainly not without a lot of legal wrangling — which takes a great deal of time and a whole lot more money, and it’s also obviously a tremendous hassle (which no new business owners in their right minds would want to undertake).

Oddly enough, though, DKR seem set on undertaking this hassle, perhaps because they don’t understand what a trademark actually is.

DEFINITION OF A TRADEMARK

The actual trademark is the NAME OF THE BUSINESS; in this case, that trademark IS “Designs on Demand.”

The trademark is NOT the URL website address, a point which confuses many people. The argument here is NOT simply over the fact that DKR registered http://designsondemand.ORG, but that DKR are trying to use as their own the trademarked name “Designs on Demand” — which I’ve already explained belongs solely to Margaret and Darrel Scheperle. Even now that DKR are using “DesignsOnDemand.org,” they are still using the trademarked “Designs on Demand” as the essential portion of their name, and what’s more important is that they are doing so illegally.

Wikipedia explains trademark issues very well. Basically, although these two companies are dealing mostly (see the next paragraph) in very different merchandise, the trademark issue exists simply because right now they are both using essentially the same name. The different merchandise they deal in is completely irrelevant to the issue of trademark.

(Although the products offered are entirely irrelevant to the trademark issue, there is actually some potential competitive overlap product-wise between DKR’s venture and the Scheperles’ Designs on Demand which is a tertiary concern to the Scheperles. Because the Scheperles offer personalized sew-on fabric patches which they specifically market in competition with similar products that are embroidered. This product has done so well the Scheperles have given it its own website at http://colorpatch.com. Please note the first words on that site say, “ColorPatch by Designs on Demand”; this is specifically to indicate the Scheperles are marketing their ColorPatch product under their already trademarked name, “Designs on Demand.” Unlike embroidered patches, the Scheperles’ patches are permanently dyed onto the fabric background — providing less chance — than with an embroidered patch — for a patch to catch on something and become damaged or torn. The potential problem relative to this product is that if DKR were ever to market cross stitch patterns for a designer who also markets machine embroidery patterns — even if those machine embroidery patterns are never marketed through DKR’s venture — DKR would still be marketing for a designer who is in direct competition with the Scheperles’ company. While DKR can guarantee none of their designers are currently machine embroidery designers, DKR cannot guarantee this situation won’t ever change. At any time, any one of its designers might start creating machine embroidery designs. DKR simply does not have and cannot demand this kind of control over anyone else.)

To help explain both the issue of trademark as well as the separate issue of website URLs further, let’s look at a company I used to work for myself: AT&T. AT&T is the abbreviation for American Telephone & Telegraph. AT&T, as we all know, is a registered trademark, as is American Telephone & Telegraph. Even though all three words (”American,” “Telephone,” and “Telegraph”) are — individually — common English words, when those words are used in that particular string of words — “American Telephone & Telegraph” — they are an extremely well-known registered trademark.

You could bet your last penny that if I tried to call a new company “American Telephone & Telegraph,” or “AT&T,” I’d have AT&T lawyers on my butt faster than I can say, “Oops! Sorry!” You can also bet absolutely everything you hold dear that I’d be saying, “Sorry!” repeatedly and backing down immediately — but I wouldn’t be doing so just because AT&T has a whole bunch of money and could break me financially … I would be doing so because it would be the RIGHT thing to do … because stealing someone else’s trademarked name is just plain WRONG … because stealing someone else’s trademarked name is just that: STEALING.

The trademark — the NAME OF THE BUSINESS — is a very different concept than the URL website address. AT&T owns the dot-com website http://att.com as well as the dot-net website http://att.net. However, AT&T peacefully coexists with the dot-org website http://att.org, which is owned by a Jewish organization called the Associated Talmud Torahs of Chicago. The reason AT&T allows the Associated Talmud Torahs of Chicago to use http://att.org is because the Associated Talmud Torahs of Chicago is not in any way attempting to infringe upon AT&T’s trademark, i.e., nowhere on their site does the Associated Talmud Torahs of Chicago claim to be the phone company or in any way to have any link to the AT&T we all recognize as one of the most famous brand names in existence.

Another reason AT&T allows the Associated Talmud Torahs of Chicago to use http://att.org is because it is next to impossible for ANY company — no matter how large or how prosperous — to purchase and own every conceivable URL address which might resemble their trademarked name. Asking a small business owner — whose financial resources are much more limited — to buy every single URL address which might ever be used to refer to her trademarked business name is something the courts have already agreed is an unreasonable and ludicrous proposition. It’s that simple.

POTENTIAL LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know all of the legalities of this situation. However, I do have a B.A. and an M.S. in criminal justice, as well as eight years of experience doing investigations, which included working closely with lawyers on a variety of legal issues. Because of all that experience, I DO know that if DKR has not informed its current designers in some detail about this trademark infringement case heading their way, and if they aren’t informing any of the designers signing up with them AS they sign up, then DKR may be guilty of something known as failure to disclose. (In fact, the failure to disclose issue is one reason I am publishing this article — because I have knowledge about this case which I am obligated to disclose!)

If this case actually goes forward to court, or even just to the point of a letter of demand (the first step in almost any legal proceeding, and the step at which many legal proceedings end because the recipient will often comply with the letter of demand upon receiving it — realizing at that point that the sending party is absolutely serious about the issue at hand), all those contracts will be deemed null and void if DKR didn’t inform the designers about this situation already and/or upfront. It’s kind of like trying to sell a house that’s got something really major wrong with it and not disclosing that information to potential buyers. The buyers have the right to know what they’re getting into BEFORE they get into it, so when a seller doesn’t tell potential buyers about a known problem, that seller can get into heaps of trouble.

So because of the initial — and illegal — failure to disclose, any deals which resulted from it are not considered valid. Any deals which extend further out from there are also not considered valid, such as if a current designer talks two more into signing up with DKR’s venture; not only would the initial designer’s contract be invalid, but so would those other two designers’ contracts. That’s fruit of the poisonous tree sort of stuff.

And you designers actually WANT your contracts to be invalid in this case. The reason for that is because, should this situation actually go as far as a courtroom, you can be certain the Scheperles’ attorney will most likely name every single designer participating in DKR’s venture as being complicit in the trademark infringement case — and none of you want to be in that position, do you? None of you want the hassle, the expense, or the effect it could have on your reputation — even though you had no idea any of this was going on … It wouldn’t be at all fair to you, would it? So that’s why your contracts would be considered null and void — because DKR didn’t inform you, and therefore, you couldn’t make an informed decision about doing business with them before they got this matter straightened out.

But, now that I’ve posted THIS article (the one you’re reading now, titled, “ATTN: All Designers Who Were Interested in ‘Designers Wanted,’ ” that is), and now that I’ve emailed you and advised you to read this article, each of you designers has another issue to think about: Now YOU know about the trademark infringement situation, which means now you ARE informed. So you have to decide if you can continue doing business with DKR while they are still using the name Designs On Demand.Org. That’s your decision, of course, but the Scheperles ARE scheduling a meeting with an attorney (they’ve already consulted with two others, and this third one is the one they have chosen to handle the case for them). That attorney will be starting the legal process, as usual, with a letter of demand. When the chips start to fall, where do you want to be?

I would certainly think you’d not only want to protect yourself, but that you’d also want to stand with the Scheperles because trademark infringement is very similar to copyright infringement. In fact, this is actually what surprises me most about this entire situation: designers, shop owners, and anyone trying to keep a business going in the needlework world is usually so vocal about the importance of respecting copyright issues that I really have a hard time understanding why DKR aren’t respecting the Scheperles’ trademark. If the tables were turned, I’m certain DKR would be just as angry as the Scheperles are — maybe even more so. In any event, I am hoping that you designers will beseech DKR to remedy their error in this situation immediately — for your sake, for their sake, and for the Scheperles’ sake … and simply because it’s the right thing to do!

AGAIN, DKR’S IDEA IS A GOOD ONE!

As I’ve heard from my designer connections who made inquiries with DKR, there are some very good reasons, some of which I already mentioned in “Designers Wanted,” to market your designs through a company like this, and perhaps even through this particular company. For instance, I’ve learned the percentage of profits a designer will receive for the sales on his or her own designs if marketed through DKR’s venture is 80%, which I understand is significantly higher than anywhere else with a similar marketing plan — and keeping more of your own profits is always good thing, especially for an individual designer.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

All this means DKR are still in need of a name — and perhaps a corresponding URL for their website address, of course.

I’m hoping DKR read this and come to their senses, whether from reading this article or through any other means because, aside from their problems coming up with a business name they can legally use, they have some terrific ideas and plans for their new venture. Literally, every problem I’ve listed above completely disappears as soon as DKR chooses a business name they can legally trademark for themselves. I love the idea that the designers who sign up to market their designs through them will keep 80% of their own profits — and I’m sure the designers will love the idea, too. With an offer like that, more and more designers will sign up with them, and they’ll stick around, too. (Who knows … maybe it will even encourage some people who’ve been teetering on the edge to try designing! ) We stitchers will find it easier to obtain those wonderfully imaginative, but hard-to-find patterns by the new, independent designers — and we DO love the thrill of discovering a new designer! And, of course, DKR stand to make decent money themselves, so it’s a win-win-win … Almost all of the work (minus a few minor corrections here and there, such as correcting the email link for the support address on this page, updating everything which needs updating with new logos in connection with a new company name, and so on) is already done — and done well, too … They just need a name — a great one they will be proud to trademark for themselves.

Maybe “Design Emergency Room”? No, I don’t think so; clearly, I’ve been spending too much time in hospitals lately. How about “On Call Designers”? Hmmm. Still too medicinal, and perhaps too provocative. “The Pattern Palette”? Oh, I LIKE that one! But, although the URL is available no matter what extension is chosen, a Google search comes up with 15,500 hits for “The Pattern Palette,” so a significant amount of research would need to be done to confirm this isn’t already someone else’s trademarked name — and since it’s not my business venture, I’m going to stop now …

However, you can feel free to post here suggesting names for DKR’s venture; I assure you, they’re reading!

Technorati Tags: Cross Stitch Expo, Stitch A Painting, Rick’s Charts, Rick Abbott, Art of Stitching, Deanna’s Designs, trademark, copyright, infringement, needlework, cross stitch, intellectual property, Margaret Scheperle, Darrel Scheperle, Designs on Demand, DesignsOnDemand.org, Designs On Demand.org, common law trademark, TM

Having seen this issue mentioned in many places — such as blogs, bulletin boards, and mailing lists — and as someone who is promoting both shows, I am reposting the following, with permission (because to do otherwise would be a copyright violation, and you already know how I feel about those — and why ), so more people have access to the official thinking on the matter. Besides, it is far better written than I could do! It was originally posted to the Stitching Jubilee Yahoo Group, which is THE place to stay up to the second on news about the Stitching Jubilee.

Fellow Stitchers,

In 2006, the Hershey Festival was held very close the Louisville show. In 2007, the same thing happened. In 2008, we plan to hold the Jubilee one week before the Louisville show. I have been asked why this is.

Many times, in planning these events and shows, organizers are quite limited to dates because of venues. We want to place the events and shows at large enough locations, with good access to extras like shopping and food options. Sometimes these venues are very limited to when they can host particular events.

Marilyn knows that many of you are concerned about the proximity of the Jubilee and the Louisville show. She understands that it can be a time crunch.

All this to say why we scheduled the Jubilee when we did. I thank everyone for their concern on this matter. It’s questions like this that the Moderators are here. We want you to understand the Jubilee. We want you to attend if you can. It’s about the stitching and the fun.

Regards,
Megan Andres
Webmaster
http://www.stitchingjubilee.com

By the way, check out who’s already scheduled to teach at the Stitching Jubilee! I guess Lorri Birmingham isn’t completely retired — yey!

Technorati Tags: Stitching Jubilee, Marilyn Vredevelt, Stoney Creek, Valley Forge, King of Prussia, Catherine Jordan, Lorri Birmingham, Patricia Hartman, Pat Hartman

I had hoped to get a very explicit, accurate, and detailed retraction about the Needle Necessities/ThreadworX situation posted already. Unfortunately, life has gotten in the way (those details will be covered later, too; right now I am simply drowning).

However, this post is immediately necessary in order to correct errors I made earlier regarding Dragonfly Dreams.

Earlier, I implied Dragonfly Dreams was not an authorized Needle Necessities supplier, I was wrong, WRONG, W-R-O-N-G.

Here is how that mistake happened: I went by the information listed on Needle Necessities’ website. They listed one Australian distributor, and just two Australian shops who carried their threads. I took that to mean no other shops carried their products. While this assumption would generally be true if I had been making it about Needle Necessities’ US listings, it would not generally true regarding shops in Australia for a variety of reasons — only I didn’t learn that last bit of information, nor would it have ever crossed my mind to ask about it prior to this situation. I very incorrectly assumed shops from different countries were all treated the same by Needle Necessities.

You’ve probably heard the “joke” about why you should not assume? Because you might make an ass out of U and me? Well, I certainly made an ass out of myself this time.

A surprising result (at least to me) of this situation is that a good number of people (who have come to trust me when I mention copyright) found themselves even more disturbed than I was by the possible copyright infringement which I speculated might have been occurring. They actually wanted to do something about it and took it upon themselves to start contacting Karen Kirk, owner of Dragonfly Dreams, to ask why she stocks, “counterfeit threads”!

The thing is, some investigation was required first in order to determine whether or not any copyright infringement had indeed occurred (much less whether or not there was an issue of counterfeit threads … which is laughable — except when it is directed at you). Karen wrote to me [emphasis mine]:

The thread image you displayed on your site was loaded when we were told that they were the same company, and I forgot to change the image when I was told two months later that they were not. I have since corrected this, as I correct all honest mistakes when they are brought to my attention.

Therefore, copyright infringement is also NOT an issue in this case.

In other words, to those individuals who are calling Karen at Dragonfly Dreams, it is time to STOP. I was WRONG. Karen did nothing wrong.

I am new to doing this specific kind of business (the journalism part of what I am doing now, that is) and so this is an educational process for me; it is from my readers that I learn and become more accurate in my journalistic efforts. In fact, Bernadette Huysing of the Needlework Boutique (a competitor of Dragonfly Dreams; Blogroll) was kind enough to contact me — not only in Karen’s and Dragonfly Dream’s defense, but also to explain to me some of the inner workings of the distributing of threads in Australia about which I was entirely unaware. Because of my lack of knowledge on that matter, my report was very inaccurate and contained some unintended but still negative reflection on Dragonfly Dreams.

I certainly did not intend to “condemn” any business or to direct any malice toward any business in any way . However, there is a LOT of information to get out to the public, so the upcoming article retracting my statements is taking some time to write.

I have twice called Karen Kirk, owner of Dragonfly Dreams, on the telephone in response to emails from her because I felt this situation was important enough to call her about rather than just send email back and forth. She deserved to hear my voice, and the sincerity in it. I have also received email or comments from some of her most loyal customers. Please accept my heartfelt apology to all of you as well.

Note to Bre: Both of your comments will be published, and in fact, I am utilizing your first comment to make sure my more extensive retraction post is correct and properly detailed. I am also cross-checking points 2 and 4 of your first comment with ThreadworX. Also, having talked by phone directly with Karen and with Travis Richmond, I am quite sure we are all in agreement that we don’t wish to incite any further argument; therefore, as soon as my full retraction is written, approved in advance by Karen Kirk of Dragonfly Dreams and Travis Richmond of ThreadworX, and posted here on Independent Needlework News, I will post your comments at that time.

Technorati Tags: Dragonfly Dreams, Karen Kirk, copyright

Distributor Norden Crafts has a very informative article called Copyrights and Copywrongs on their website.  It gives you the basics on copyright law as it pertains to the needlework industry.

This article is about as close as you can get to finding copyright information pertaining to the needlework industry “in a nutshell.” Even though I have been studying copyright law with regard to needlework for many years now, even I still find it confusing at times. 

In fact, that is one of the biggest problems with copyright law, in my opinion – that it is so confusing.  I focus on it often here on Independent Needlework News as a service  to you and to the industry I love because, most of the time, understanding is the key to compliance.  It is difficult to follow a law you don’t understand because you don’t know if what you are doing is correct or not.  However, ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, and the penalties for copyright infringement are too high — this is DEFINITELY one law you do NOT want to break for a MULTITUDE of reasons.   

Norden Craft’s article helps answer some of the more confusing questions in a fairly clear way. I recommend it to you as something to read today, and then as something to review perhaps once every six months or so — just to keep these thoughts fresh in your own mind so that your actions are always clearly in line with copyright laws.

Bookmark this site, too, for those times when you have questions!

By the way, if you are wondering why a needlework distributor is interested in copyright law, it is because needlework distributors are affected by the illegal copying of needlework patterns, too.  Copyright infringement hurts the needlework industry AT EVERY SINGLE LEVEL.

Let’s say this distributor normally sells ten copies each of ten different patterns to each shop (100 patterns total). If one customer from each shop buys one copy of each of those ten different patterns and makes ten illegal copies of each of those patterns, which they then illegally give to ten different friends, then those friends do not need to buy the original patterns (which means the shop loses their business).  Now the other nine of each of those patterns waiting to be bought by customers are still sitting on the shop’s shelves …

And let’s not forget to do the math, either.  Suppose each of those ten different patterns retails for $10, which is getting to be a fairly average price nowadays.  Just one set of those ten patterns at retail value would be $100! With just one customer from each shop giving away ten copies of ten patterns to ten friends, the shop would lose $1000!  Nine more shops around the country would also lose $1000 each!

When the shops don’t sell the patterns they expect to sell, they don’t reorder as soon as they expected to and/or they don’t have the funds to place new orders for other products. This means the distributors are now not receiving orders like they used to — either they are receiving smaller orders, or their orders are coming in farther and farther apart.

It took a little while, but in the end, both the shop AND the distributor lost business, and that is why Norden Crafts has made this article available to you. They want you to understand that if you make a copy of a pattern for a friend or accept a copy of a pattern from a friend, it is hurting their business, too.

What’s more important, perhaps, at least to you, is that Norden Crafts wants you to understand that when you cause your shop to lose business in this way, then you give your shop two choices, neither of which is particularly appealing: raise their prices or go out of business. Which one do you prefer?

I prefer my shop stay in business AND be able to keep their prices lower, so I refuse to make or accept illegal copies of patterns. Please do the same.

JUST SAY NO TO COPYWRONGS !!!

Technorati Tags: Norden Crafts, copyrights, copywrongs, needlework, copyright, infringement

I have some news for you today that I am so excited about myself I am practically jumping up and down. Actually, I was jumping up and down two minutes ago and letting out big, “Woohoo!” noises, but it was scaring my cats and making it awfully hard to type.

Creative Poppy is now live! I have been touting Helga Mandl’s designs for quite some time now, but it has been somewhat difficult for US fans to get their hands on her designs because she lives in Croatia where PayPal is not accepting payments … Well, we have been rescued by Creative Poppy, who is located in France and taking payments directly by PayPal!

In the About Us section of Creative Poppy, the founder, speaking on behalf not just of herself but also of all the designers whose designs are hosted on Creative Poppy, writes:

We launched Creative Poppy because we realized there was a lot of amazing design talent in cross stitch and needlework yet sadly stitchers had very little access to these patterns. Why? Because there are only so many patterns that make it to a store. Because you can fit only so many designs into a magazine. Because beautiful needlework books get limited distribution. Wouldn’t it be nice for stitchers shopping for patterns to get to see all the patterns that are out there and discover all this fresh designer talent?

Yes! Yes! Yes! This is EXACTLY the kind of shop we need, and EXACTLY the kind of shop the Internet so easily provides for … It’s about time someone took good advantage of the technology we have available to try out something new in the needlework industry. I predict this will definitely NOT be the last shop of its kind, even though I know many brick and mortar shops will not like it at first.

Well, I have a few things to say to the brick and mortar shops about this, but this post is about Creative Poppy, so for now, I’ll just say that it’s a different world than the world you (thought you) started business in, and if you want to survive, you’re going to have to grow with the changes because the customers are NOT going to wait for YOU. We’ll be glad to help you, though, if you’re willing to listen to our input.

Creative Poppy is offering us access to so many designers who, before now, were either practically unheard of or whose patterns were extremely hard to find including Agnès Delage-Calvet , Annick Abrial, Barbara Ana Designs, Bernadette Baldelli, Boule de Neige, Brodi Broda, Chouett’alors, Corinne Lacroix, Couleur d’étoile, Dessins DHC, Féeféedille, Helga Mandl, Il était une fois…demain, l’Atelier des Songes, Laurence Wichegrod, Lili Points, Lili Soleil, Marie-Anne Réthoret-Mélin, Marie-Noëlle Bayard, Monique Bonnin, Nimüe, Orbis Pictura, Perrette Samouiloff, and Tom et Lily.

If somehow among all those new and enchanting designers you don’t find something appealing to you it turns out you actually have every pattern you want by these designers, you can make a pattern request by email for a chance to win a free pattern.

Make sure you check the homepage, too, as there is an introductory offer for all first-time orders of $4 off (minimum order of $6.90). That means you can try one pattern out from Creative Poppy for as little as $2.90! When was the last time you paid that for a brand new pattern which had not been discontinued? It’s a great deal, so give it a try!

All patterns from Creative Poppy are downloadable patterns, meaning instant gratification for you, the stitcher, and the possibility of getting started stitching your new chart(s) right away. Additionally, there are NO SHIPPING CHARGES.

However, as with almost every downloadable chart I have ever come across, the copyright restrictions as designated by the chart creators state that you may NOT sell or give away the chart in any form (printed or electronic) to anyone else. To obtain that privilege with your chart purchase, you pretty much have to buy a physical chart in person or have it shipped to you from a needlework store; the copyright regulations for electronic charts are handled differently, and stitchers need to recognize and respect this.

Creative Poppy allows you to shop using the currency you are most comfortable using and most familiar with, whether that is the US dollar, the Euro, or the UK pound. VAT is added to those individuals whose addresses are in the European union because, as these products are downloadable files, they are considered software.

After you check it out and make your first purchases, come back here and let me know what you added to your stash!

Technorati Tags: Creative Poppy, copyright, Agnès Delage-Calvet , Annick Abrial, Barbara Ana Designs, Bernadette Baldelli, Boule de Neige, Brodi Broda, Chouett’alors, Corinne Lacroix, Couleur d’étoile, Dessins DHC, Féeféedille, Helga Mandl, Il était une fois…demain, l’Atelier des Songes, Laurence Wichegrod, Lili Points, Lili Soleil, Marie-Anne Réthoret-Mélin, Marie-Noëlle Bayard, Monique Bonnin, Nimüe, Orbis Pictura, Perrette Samouiloff, Tom et Lily

I received a question from a reader (who prefers to remain anonymous, but thank you all the same for giving me the opportunity to weigh in on this very important NEWS ISSUE within the needlework community) late yesterday asking me to confirm or deny a rumor going around that popular thread company (certainly one of MY personal favorites!) Needle Necessities either has gone or is going out of business.

This rumor is COMPLETELY FALSE.

I spoke directly with Debbie BuSteed, Needle Necessities’ front Office Manager, on the telephone just minutes ago using the main Needle Necessities number posted on their website (714-892-9211). Debbie was very forthcoming and confirmed that while she has heard the rumor and received numerous calls about its veracity, it is NOT TRUE. If ANYONE would know whether or not this rumor were true, it would be Debbie.

Perhaps partly fueling the FALSE rumor is the fact that a few Needle Necessities’ employees have chosen to leave the company for personal reasons. Therefore, Needle Necessities has been running shorthanded, which has in some cases left them somewhat behind in filling orders.

However, they are catching up with all their employees pitching in wherever they can. Debbie herself is doing pretty much everything from answering the phones and taking orders right through to shipping — except the actual dyeing, she says, which she does not know how to do.

***************************************************************************

Now, on a somewhat different note, I would just like to refer you to another of my absolute favorite Internet resources. It’s called the Internet Tourbus, is written with intelligence and a generous dose of good humor by Bob Rankin and Patrick Crispen, and I have been subscribing to it for literally YEARS, even though I know the Internet pretty well by now. In particular, I would like to mention an archived Internet Tourbus issue concerning people who have spread false rumors which resulted in harming a company’s business … And THAT resulted in those people being SUED by a big company — Proctor & Gamble, to be specific … And the little people LOST the lawsuits — BIG TIME — because they had lied without bothering to check their facts, and thus were deemed to have willfully harmed Proctor & Gamble’s business.

So my personal advice to anyone who has been spreading this rumor about Needle Necessities which I have now FLATLY DEBUNKED is that you post immediate retractions everywhere you posted the rumor ASAP to CYA. Better to be as safe as possible at this point than sorrier than horse poop. Feel free to refer people to this article here on Independent Needlework News for the facts; the direct link to this article is:

http://independentneedleworknews.com/2007/08/21/nn-not-out-of-business/

or you can also use the TinyURL code: http://tinyurl.com/2gru83

And sign up (or as Bob and Patrick call it, get a free ticket) for the Internet Tourbus, too. You’ll enjoy it; I promise!

Technorati Tags: Needle Necessities, rumor, out of business, Internet Tourbus, Proctor & Gamble, lawsuit, sue, Bob Rankin, Patrick Crispen