RA guys.

I feel bad for you, but to a large extent you screwed yourself here. Actually, the distinction is very blurred in terms of who is right. Here's an example.... Let's say I develop an app which uses a web browser control (provided by apple)....

...and I connect to some random website that happens to have apple images on it...

...that's EXACTLY the same as this app does. It downloads an image, from somewhere else... In fact what your app did is better. Since you download the image from an app running on a machine with (you assume) a licensed copy of OS X on it which grants the user the right to use those images (whether it grants them the right to transmit them over a network is another matter entirely to which I don't know the answer.)

The argument about public APIs etc is nonsensical. They are a different SDK entirely. A much better argument would have been to say "I download that image, from a machine, with a paid for copy of OS X on it which permits my end user to use that artwork. It's not part of my app, it's downloaded content, just like pointing a web control at apple.com"

For that matter, why didn't you just put a little switch line of code in there that waits 30 days from submission date before turning the icons back on. You could have just quietly turned it off for a while if you think you're in the right. No one would ever have known (or cared) and you would have felt like you'd got one over on them. Now you have all that attention drawn to you for no particularly good reason...

I agree their responses are draconian and absurd and would not stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny in terms of "protecting customers." Clearly they just (excessively and un-necessarily) protect apple. But screaming "no fair" and "You let me do it last time!" isn't going to get you anywhere...

That said, your apps are wonderful and I wish you every success in your future endeavours...