West Saint Paul Antiques

Mr. Ruggles,

It is regrettable that you are stuck on getting answers to moot questions, which is both a waste of time and effort on both our parts.  Perhaps a federal judge can make that clear to you?

Nevertheless, I will answer a few questions:

1. Case 516719 was closed because our client said to close it.  Nothing else truly matters and you have no right to know our communications with our client and your assumptions are not well-advised.
2. It find interesting that you claim PicRights did not attempt to resolve these matters considering you conversed with its staff on several occasions.  Additionally, there is no “coordinated attack” on your website; but for your multiple unlawful uses of the properties of others, there would be no contact with you at all.  Perhaps you should look in instead of out as the source of your troubles.
3. That you still look for copyright registration certificates though copyright exists prior to, and even in the absence of, shows your dire need of seeking competent counsel.  You really should discuss these matters with a licensed attorney of your own choosing to avoid such pratfalls.
4. I did not address your suggestion of removing the counteroffer because it is an abnormal request.  I’ll be blunt, if you remove (rescind?) the counteroffer, we must then advise our clients to proceed immediately to suit, the result of which will leave you with an understanding of how much cheaper it would have been to just pay the full demands – let alone further negotiations.
5. I believe we are negotiating in good faith but we await counteroffers, or a combined counteroffer, that might actually motivate these property holders – our clients – to settle rather than litigate.  Of course, if you remove the $4000 counteroffer, all good faith will have evaporated.
6. I believe I may have either miscounted or mistyped; observe:
1. 6PEEMQ – 32 images
2. L60051 – 1 image
3. XQVVPY – 5 images
4. N5MMOZ – 1 image
5. 0Q993N – 1 image

40 images total

7. The screenshot provided you in my prior email was created by me, simultaneous to and for the email response I sent; however, that you question this shows that you have failed to consider the information found in that image as it does show that our client is the author – and therefore the copyright holder – of the image you unlawfully used.  (This is the kind of irrelevant questions that is going to lead you to answering to a federal judge as to why you care so little about the property of others.)

We will not be chasing down your multiple rabbit holes of irrelevance.  You have a simple, direct question before; do you want to resolve these matters or do you want to face injunctions and judgments from a federal court?