Where is Noreen's Knit-che?

Looks like the scoundrel pulled the page as she is takeing credit for patterns that are not hers. Maybe the real author of the scarf you want will pipe up and direct you to it.

bj

As nearly as I can tell the "Glamour Scarf" on Noreen's site is...Noreen's pattern. What proof do you have to the contrary? Or is your sudden and apparently unfounded placing of blame possibly an effort to redirect our attention from the real transgressor?

On 16 Aug 2005 22:58:46 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com spewed forth :

+++++++++++++

Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account...

I am 99% sure that the Glamour Scarf is from a 1960's era book called "Knitting, Crochet, and Embroidery." The Prairie Breeze shawl is not hers, it is the Cobweb Lace Shawl from the Winter 04 MagKnits. The stitch patters she presented were not hers to sell, they were offered for free (but copyrighted) at knittingand.com. And her Mystical Spiral Socks or whatever they were called had the photo, at least, taken from Patons' site.

The only thing of the below that I haven't confirmed is the Glamour Scarf. The rest of it? I have been VERY, very careful. If you have any of Noreen's patterns or photos that I mention below, I can show you the originals.

I can't find the patterns page either. Is it possible that those patterns aren't really hers, and the knitting police quashed that particular page? LB

I emailed her that she had been caught selling patterns from my site and that if she didn't remove them I would take further action. She seems to have removed all the patterns since the people who alerted me that she was selling my patterns also caught her selling a lot of other people's work too.

I saved the page in order to prove the images of my patterns were just doctored ones from my website so if you'd like proof I can provide it.

I would also suggest that anyone who has purchased any of the following patterns from her demand their money back:

Diffused Lace Web Stitch Labyrinth Lace Web Stitch Matrix Openwork Lace Web Stitch and Maze Lace Web Stitch

as these are patterns from my website that I give away for free.

I don't understand why she thought she'd get away with it. I have over

6,000 individual visitors to my website every day, one of them was bound to see the patterns on her site eventually (and they did, obviously).

Sarah

These are the images that noreen had on her patterns page at the top, and the images from my website shrunk to the same size at the bottom. They're not just similar, they're the same images with a quick border and colour-shift to try and disguise them.

You say Kathryn should be "careful", what about Noreen? She's the one that's done the wrong thing.

Um hun - read the poster's name - it was Mirjam, not Noreen. I'll even repost it for you here.

"I think that before you make such an accusation , you should be very very very careful mirjam"

Knittingand was commenting on the theft of her designs, not the post.

Knittingand was commenting on the theft of her designs, not the post.

I was asking Mirjam why she hadn't commented on Noreen's proven theft of other people's materiials when it's Noreen that has done something wrong, not those defending their copyright.

And don't call me "hun". I loathe condescension and have the intelligence to comprehend what I am reading, thanks very much.

On 18 Aug 2005 18:17:19 -0700, "knittingand" spewed forth :

Nothing has really been "proven" to my satisfaction. You've shown us some images, and other people have made statements. Lacking the patterns from Noreen's sites for examination I have no way of researching any of the claims or statements that have been made. And no, your saved copies of her pages won't suffice for my purposes.

+++++++++++++

Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account...

If we're talking about the pattern copyright, then yes. I've had the opportunity to view both the Prairie Breeze Shawl pattern and the Cobweb Shawl pattern, and while the framing text is different, the way the actual pattern is presented is very close to identical. However, photographs are also copyrighted, and she's using other people's photographs while claiming them as her own, which is not OK.

What would suffice for your purposes, out of curiosity?

This is a link to Noreen's blog:

at the bottom, where she has a picture of "the last of her mystical spiral socks that she made." Apart from the fact that you can see the printer dots on the picture, you can find the same photo here, flipped and with the other sock that was originally in the picture present: is the same picture that she was using to sell the "mystical spiral socks pattern." She's taken that page down, so I can't link to it to prove it.

I know Noreen is active on this group, and if she wants to explain to me what the deal is, I'd be happy to hear it. She won't return my emails, and deleted the only comment I posted to her blog before she disallowed comments.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:05:08 -0700, "Kathryn Tewson" spewed forth :

System-level access to both Noreen's and Sarah's files that Sarah believes are stolen. System-level access to all of Noreen's files as well as hard-copy originals (pattern leaflets/booklets, books, magazines, whatever) from publishers of the patterns to which Noreen's webpages are being compared. There's more to a webpage than what turns up in your browser window.

Hard-copy originals from publishers of any disputed commercial patterns - leaflets, booklets, magazines, books, whatever.

As I don't see any of these things happening, I can't verify one way or another if any hanky-panky is going on. That essentially means I have no opinion one way or the other.

I don't think Noreen owes *you* an explanation. Maybe she owes Sarah an explanation if she has in fact done something wrong, but you aren't party to any of the alleged injury, and neither am I, which is why I'm taking no position until I see the proof *with my own eyes*.

And on that note I'm going to bed. As far as I'm concerned this is a dead issue until I can examine the proof myself.

+++++++++++++

Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account...