Misplaced Blame In Copyright Infringement Claim Over Plagiarized Website
from the why-not-blame-the-actual-party? dept
Rose M. Welch alerts us to a court case where two law firms are fighting over a copied web page. There seems to be no question at all that the website of one law firm used almost an exact copy of some text from another law firm's website. So that would make it a pretty clear cut case. But... there's a bit of a complication. The law firm who used the copied content didn't realize the content was copied. It had hired an outside firm to build the website, and someone at that firm copied the content in creating the website. An arbiter ruled that the development firm was 2/3 responsible, but that the law firm was still 1/3 responsible, and the case has now shifted from arbitration to court. The problem is that it still seems difficult to see why the law firm should be liable at all. The folks they hired to create the website did the actual copying, and the law firm had no idea. So why should they take the blame?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blame, copyright, plagiarism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'd be interesting to see who developed the websites for both companies. It's possible that the developers were the same. If that is the case then ... usually developers have templates and they recycle them. No reason to reinvent the wheel.
Same with code libraries. No reason to rewrite them unless improving on them somehow. Literally, why recreate the wheel when it functions right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As someone already pointed out, that's good because that means more resources and time suing each other and less resources suing us. Let them sue at each other until ... well, let them sue each other out of business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
since when
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What do you mean, they had no idea? It's their friggin' website, they should know what goes on it. I figure the devs must have put some placeholder text in there, which they picked up on a similar website, and it was never removed/replaced because whoever was in charge from the law firm didn't do his job.
This is much like paying someone to build you a house and then you go missing in action for a year or so. Then you suddenly show up and start yelling at the builder for not doing exactly what you had in mind. Never mind that you never told him just what you wanted. Never mind that you weren't there to make decisions in unexpected situations.
Entitlement society, indeed. They want all the benefits of modern technology, but none of this pesky responsibility stuff like knowing what it entails. And because they're friggin' lawyers, they managed to shift fully 2/3 of the blame on the developers. Way to go.
Yes, I'm a Web developer, too...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Granted, the devs should have been more cautious and used Lorem Ipsum text instead. That would have been fun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bad Law Firm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
So they hire a firm to develop the site and add the appropriate text, written in a pleasing format. The firm probably did check to make sure that the text was factual and satisfactory, but how would they know that the text had been copied verbatim from another non-competing firm in a different state? The design firm obviously knew (because it was verbatim) and they should be liable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: since when
In the few cases where I get people who have color schemes and text all picked out, I sometimes have to talk them out of it into something better, or risk ending up on www.webpagesthatsuck.com.
I specialize in complete site solutions, so we usually do come up with the marketing text and everything else, something including logo design and the whole works for new businesses. We probably could just wholesale nab text and code from other people, but we have more integrity than that. (Also, that's just boring.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Nah - just Google a couple of key phrases - that usually works for me to detect student web-based plagiarism. Five minute job!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Equity
In terms of how it *should* work, it's first essential to separate off the nature of the harm - a copyright infringement vs., say, a car accident - from how any damages get apportioned. One could well argue that the actual harm to the winning law firm from having their web page copied is zero. In the old days, law firms gave out paper descriptions of their services. (They still do, actually.) They all look pretty much the same. What's the big deal?
But, OK, that's not the question at hand. The question at hand is: Given the damage done, who should pay. And here's where the nature of civil, as opposed to criminal, law enters. Civil law is *primarily* concerned with the issue of apportioning costs. X was harmed. Who should compensate X? The basic standard is: Whoever caused the harm. Causality is complicated and has to be cut off somewhere, or you blame the minor of iron ore without who's work the steel that went into the care wouldn't have been available. And you also want to look at who was in a position to prevent the harm (and had some reasonable obligation to do so) and who might have gained as a result of whatever harmed X. And this was the decision of an arbitrator, who is even more tasked to "make things right" than a court would be.
The lawyers hired the web company. The web company acted as their agents. The lawyers apparently gained because they got a good web site. They could perhaps have dug more deeply and asked the web company for assurances that they were being given something new, not something copied. If you read the whole article, the web company asked a very low price. The guy hiring them was savvy enough to know that, and savvy enough to expect to have to do some additional work on what was delivered. Then they delivered much more than the law firm expected. That should perhaps have raised alarms. And, apparently, the copying was pretty much exact, with only the names changed. So a simple search would have been enough.
Given all this, it's not unreasonable on its face for an arbitrator to say that the law firm - actually, the partner who hired the web firm, personally - should share in the liability. If your cars brakes are acting flakey, and you choose to save money by hiring Joe from down the block who asks you for much less than the local mechanic, and then your brakes fail and you hit someone - shouldn't you bear some of the blame?
By the way, the court case being reported on here seems to have *nothing* to do with the merits. It seems to be a procedural decision on where the suit can be filed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
... realize that the contractor had hired an architect who had used a design from another site ...
Never mind that you didn't tell the contractor to not use blueprints from other houses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's not my responsibility to interview the materials sources to ensure they werent' stolen. In a legal contract, it's assumed that the materials being sold are legally obtained. With that said, I'm not entitled to keep the stolen property.
The house would come down in order to recover the materials. But I'm not responsible for taking it down. The fault lies with the builder, and all remedies should be sought from them. Both to recover the stolen property, and to recover for a house that wasn't built.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's not my responsibility to interview the materials sources to ensure they werent' stolen. In a legal contract, it's assumed that the materials being sold are legally obtained. With that said, I'm not entitled to keep the stolen property.
The house would come down in order to recover the materials. But I'm not responsible for taking it down. The fault lies with the builder, and all remedies should be sought from them. Both to recover the stolen property, and to recover for a house that wasn't built.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To try for a better analogy, if you publish a book (as an author), do you expect the editor to also write it for you? Sure, he'll help you edit the text (that's why he's called an editor). He might even help you divide it into chapters, and of course he'll be responsible for the presentation, but it's ultimately YOUR book, your text. If you're later accused of plagiarism, you don't get to say the editor has added a chapter without your knowledge, because you're supposed to be involved in every stage of the publishing process. And if you're not, and the editor does add a chapter without your knowledge, well, what kind of a book author are you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Now, you can easily prove you didn't kill those people (and it's pretty obvious who did), but the question is, how come you didn't know about the bodies? Just how neglectful can you get? You didn't check the contractors' work while they were building your house, you didn't check out the finished product... You didn't even go down into the basement, for crying out loud! Are you really not responsible at all for what happens on your own friggin' property?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The house analogy does not work
I agree that it was improper to copy the site but it was not THEFT. Lets come up with a better argument than comparing this to the criminal act of theft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copy is clients responsibility
To the designer's though... wtf were you thinking? Seriously, you'll put actual copy up on a website you design without client input? Throw some lorem ipsum text up there as standard practice. When a client tells you to make something up, have them sign a form or something that absolves you from liability for the copy used.
Yes, I agree with the decision that both designer/lawfirm should be held responsible, but I disagree with the margin, it should have been 50/50.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Indemnification
We typically meet with them, get the gist of their products and services, agree on a tone, a look and feel, and then get to work.
But my main point is that the contracts we sign on to ALWAYS have a section titled Indemnification, in which we, the creators of their site, promise that we did not copy anyone else's stuff, and that we have every right to offer our clients full persistent rights to use the stuff, and that if they are ever sued, we take the blame. This is a no brainer for our clients to put in the contract. Did the law firm in question not do this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who's responsible for the copy?
Alternatively, the web company will tell the client to provide the copy. If this happens, the client will often outsource to a copywriter directly. Often, because this is an unexpected turn of events for the client, they'll have no budget (as described above), and the copy will go to the lowest bidder.
On some rare occasions, the client will, in fact, value the copy, and will allocate additional budget to it -- enough to engage a quality copywriter.
In ALL of the above situations, I think the supplier is solely responsible if the copy is plagiarized. The client, in good faith, requested that copy be written for their site. They engaged a copyWRITER not a copyCOPIER to do the job. I think it's fair for the client to assume that the copy would be written, not copied.
That said, the world being the litigious place is today, it would probably be in the client's best interests to state their expectations and include a disclaimer of some sort in their contract with the copywriter. It would also behoove them to Google a few of the unique phrases in the piece, just to be sure they haven't been plagiarized.
This sort of thing happens a lot. I've had clients contact me to let me know their competitors have plagiarized copy I've written for that client. Even funnier, I've discovered dozens of so-called copywriters who've plagiarized web copy from MY copywriting website! It's laughable, I know.
Cheers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is a tough one...
The one to blame in this case is the website builder / content developer. Their client (the law firm) hired them to prepare unique, brand new and unique content. But they used copied content.
The law firm obviously didn't realize that the content on their website was copied. However, their web content / copy is their responsibility.
[ link to this | view in thread ]