Well, I have to admit that I'm a bit surprised to see my campaign mentioned and being discussed so heavily in this thread. Had a friend who's a member here who ran across it and decided to cue me in.
I'm the guy who posted the item card images in question, so I figured I'd chime in to set a few things straight.
1) It's a personal campaign, and my reaction to the situation was on that basis. I didn't attack anyone. In fact the only things I posted in relation to the situation were this:
a) a message on our campaign pages, which have now been set to private, explaining why the page was set to private. I did this as a courtesy to the several dozen who were following had been following the storyline, and chimed in with some great ideas and concepts for the storyline.
The exact message I posted to those now-private campaign pages reads, "Sorry to all who were following, but Paizo reported copyright abuse due to tiny/low-res thumbnails of item cards on the wiki. Images have been removed, and we're now private so we can enjoy OP without trolling from the copyright police."
Whether the low-res images were 34 pixels or 180 pixels doesn't change the intent or extent of use as is legally definable.
Do I feel like it's overreaching the spirit of copyright protections? Absolutely. Does it matter what I think? Not really, and I even went so far as to state such. However, I am entitled to my own views on the matter, and on the personal decision that I made not to invest further into Paizo products.
The images were removed within 30-minutes of receiving the notice which came from the website administrators in a very polite message informing me what had been reported as copyright infringement as well as who specifically reported it.
To read some of the conversation in this thread it sometimes sounds as if I tried to start some sort of anti-Paizo campaign, or at least the situation is being used as a basis for such, but that's simply not that case. The reason I invested so much in their products to begin with is, well, because they're good products.
Did the intrusion upset me? Yes? But, thankfully, I'm free to feel however I want whether or not someone else feels it's "justified", and to purchase (or not purchase) from whatever distributor/manufacturer I please for whatever reasons I may have.
b) The *only* other place I made any mention on this was in the comments of a blog entry that was specifically related to our campaign, and an interview the website had done with me when they decided to feature our campaign as a "campaign of the month" which stated that 1) I set the campaign to private to avoid further issues, 2) felt Paizo was overreaching with their concept of protections and how it seemed to me to be related to other companies that have taken similar actions, 3) I believe (and still do) my actions fell into the category of fair use as defined by the U.S. Constitution 17 U.S.C. SS 107, and justified in practice and prima facie associated with transitive works (it was for personal reference). In other words, I owned the product, and the asserted violation was an obvious personal, non-profit and functional use of the product. How others might use the derivative of that I'm not legally or morally liable for.
To expand a bit for the sake of relevance and the basis of my point of view, I'll fall back on music... If I buy a MP3 and play over speakers in my back yard, and it happens to be loud enough for someone next door to record it and make a copy, and they do so, I am not at fault. If they then keep that copy for their own personal use, they have indeed infringed on the copyright protections. However, I simply used the product as intended by playing the MP3. I'm not liable if someone else decided to make a derivative of my personal and legally fair use of a product I purchased, nor does the protection of those copyrights have legal ground to compel me to "not play my music so loud" on the basis that "someone might record it instead of purchasing it."
c) The last and final comment I made on the blog was in response to someone who pointed out Paizo's Public Use policy and inferred it was an "agreement" and that it had the power to dictate how I use a product. To which I replied that it's a "policy" not and "agreement" which would infer a contract, that fair use is afforded by the constitution and is my constitutional right, and that no policy can revoke a constitutional right regardless of its intent.
Regardless of how people might feel about what copyright laws should or should not be, there is "what those laws currently allow and don't allow", and if you read the constitution, and the fairly well defined rights it affords for fair use, my actions do in fact fall within those legal guidelines, and my legal rights.
However, I didn't "make a stink" about it, I simply removed the images, posted my point of view (in a few sentences) on the page in their place, and then went private and have moved on with playing my campaign with my players (which was all I wanted to do to begin with).
My goal was not to get into a legal debate, or try to make a point about copyright protections, but instead to express reasons and logic for the actions I had taken and ensure that there wouldn't be further intrusions into our game, which in the end make this a moot debate: The images were immediately removed because I entered an agreement (contract) with the owners of the website when I started using their service, that clearly stated that they retain the right to ask for images/text to be removed "for any reason". They requested I do so, therefore I honored that agreement.
I'm just a guy who's trying to enjoy role-playing on weekends with his friends. When our methods of gaming came into question, I abided by all requests, stated my point of view, and moved on. That's the extent of the situation.