The opening salvo:

From: "Linda Blanchard"
Subject: Use of my images on your website

Oooooh Jack, you've hit a raw nerve with me here. I just *hate* it when people use my copyrighted images without my permission. I spend a lot of time I'd rather not spend on ebay defending my rights to my work, and sometimes people tell me they didn't take images from my site (but darned if they can remember where they did get them) and there they are all over your site.

You need to take those images off, please. I'm sorry. I know they are *good* images but my business pays lots of money for those photos and it does so so that they will earn my business income, and they aren't doing that for me when they are on other people's pages, and especially when they're being stolen from your pages (as well as mine own) and then being used to compete with me to sell Pocket Dragons in such a way as to ruin the market. :(

Here's a link to the page where my photos reside:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~jfurlong/dragon/dragon.html
--
Linda Blanchard
Astral Castle
http://www.ccgs.com

My Reply:

To: "Linda Blanchard"
Subject: RE: Use of my images on your website

You've just 'hit a raw nerve with me'.

I thought the Pocket Dragons were Copyrighted by Real Musgrave.
http://www.pocket-dragons.com (see bottom of the page)

" The Whimsical World of Pocket Dragons (c) 1989 Real Musgrave, licensed to Collectible World Studios Ltd."

Since Real and CWS hold the copyright on Pocket Dragons, I don't believe you can claim copyright for yourself, or your store.

You also seem to feel I'm competing with you, when that could not be further from the truth.
My page is a _fan_site_ and not a store!

You overlooked the listing for your store on the page (second link down on the left under the list of stores) and also the credit I gave you, just above said images, as the source of those images with a link, to encourage people to visit YOUR site.

But since you seem to want to 'cop an attitude', and consider my use of said images to be 'theft', rather than advertising for you, said images have been deleted, as have all links to your store.

I've also added a note about this whole event at the top of the page, to encourage visitors to buy their dragons elsewhere, and avoid your business.

Push comes to shove, I can always scan the Pocket Dragon catalog, and damn well create my own pictures. I don't need to support people who cannot tell fans who try to support them, from people trying to 'steal their income'.

Everyone with an axe to grind seems to think they're a lawyer, nowadays. :P

Salvo the second:

Hi Jack.

My name is Dave Bridges, and I am the co-owner of Astral Castle.

Yes, I admit that we do have an interest in making enough money to keep our business going, but we are aficionados of Real Musgrave's work too, and our Pocket Dragon Gallery, in particular, is something we are proud of as being very useful to fans. However, our justification for the decision to invest so much time and expense on professional and copyrighted photography wherever possible, instead of simply re-cycling the same images that everyone can see elsewhere, was that this would be good advertising for Astral Castle. People would come to the site to see good, clear, images of Pocket Dragons, and they might be inclined to hang around and browse through the retail catalog. Whether or not this is what happens, Astral Castle is paying a lot of money to get those images, and we don't see it as simply being "not nice" when we do not give permission for them to be used anywhere away from our site.

Having said that, I have no argument with your expressing your opinions on your web site at: http://pw2.netcom.com/~jfurlong/dragon/dragon.html

but you do include two lines that I am hoping you will consider rewording: "and they threatened legal action unless all images were removed."

-- we did not threaten legal action; Linda Blanchard merely pointed out that the images were copyrighted by her. This line might be re-worded something like: "and they insisted that all those images be removed", without changing the tone of the paragraph, and without stating that we did something that we had not actually done.

and: "If you'd like to express your displeasure about this harassment via email, here's Linda Blanchard's address"

-- a notice of a copyright violation can hardly be termed "harassment", as that would require both repetition and torment. Harassment is a serious matter, with clear legal definition and consequences. I think the simple deletion of that word would not hurt the intent of the sentence.

Also, the e-mail address you gave was the one Linda Blanchard used when contacting you, but it is not the e-mail address of Astral Castle. I would not see any comments sent to that address unless Linda chose to forward them to me. The e-mail address for Astral Castle is , and mail sent to that address is received by both Linda and myself.

I am sorry you were offended by our desire to protect our investment, but I do thank you for being so prompt in responding to our request to remove the images from your web site.

Dave.

--
Dave Bridges
http://www.ccgs.com
Astral Castle Collectibles Cards Games & Such

My Reply:

Now that I've had a chance to cool down a bit, let me comment on your letter, and explain things. In reference to the comments on my website...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From http://www.m-w.com "Copyright"
"The exclusive _legal_ right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form."

Had I refused to remove those images, what would have been your next step?
From what I've seen in the news media of similar occurances, and what Ms Blanchard had to say about 'defending her rights on ebay', this is what I assumed would occur:

You'd have sent a letter from your lawyer to my ISP, citing LEGAL COPYRIGHT, and insist that THEY 'stop the infringement'. Then my ISP would have nuked my entire website, rather than go thru the bother and expense of a court fight or go thru the site file by file. And they might then also terminate my dialup account as well (I've seen it happen).

That chain of events, beginning with the 'cease and desist' letter you sent both sent me was what I considered a LEGAL THREAT. Hence the tone of the words on my site.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Just as Ms Blanchard said she was sorry that she felt she had to email me, I'm upset that this had to happen, especially when I _still_ cannot see where I did your company demonstratable harm, or caused you loss of revenue.

Regardless of what either of you may feel or think, _I_dont_sell_dragons_. I'm a private collector, and provide links to stores (found via search engines) for the convience of visitors, and do not imply any endorsement. The banner on that page exists because that store pays me a _very_small_ percentage of sales that result from clickthru. If you look closely on the webpage I tell visitors exactly that.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I also still have serious doubts you'd win a copyright infringement suit about pictures of a third party's copyrighted merchandise, when you're depending on 'fair use' laws to allow you display those images.

Please note the following from the Cornell Legal Institute on Copyright law:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1302.html
Sec. 1302. - Designs not subject to protection
Protection under this chapter shall not be available for a design that is -
(1) not original;

Did you originate the designs for the Pocket Dragons? I think not. CWS and Real do not pursue you for infringement because they directly benefit from you selling their merchandise. It would pyrric for them to sue you.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc/17/110.html
Sec. 110. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

(4) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers

Since my site is a private, noncommercial site, it would be hard to prove I benefit from the 'theft' of your images, banner income notwithstanding, since I do not charge for viewing my website, and I do not use it to sell merchandise. This is VERY unlike the ebay 'infringements' Ms Blanchard has said she's had to pursue, and such a case might well get thrown out of court, and result in a countersuit for damages.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

But putting up a court fight to prove my opinion, when I feel I cannot afford it either monetarily or emotionally, would be the height of stupidity. At this point, it's simpler to take the images down, and replace them with something else.

As to the comments on my website, I will give some consideration to rewording them when I am less upset.

I consider this matter closed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regards,
John Furlong

I got these emails, even though:

What it comes down to is that we disagree about how copyright works... *sigh*

So rather than go thru a possible court battle, I took off 'their pictures', and walked away from the whole thing.

However, I can see that I'm still getting yet more email from them...
Heaven knows what they're saying, because my email program now deletes them from my inbox automatically.
I only know those messages arrive because I see them deleted when I exit the email program.
I guess Linda and Dave just can't live without 'having the last word'.