The Content/Copyright Battle Wages On

December 15, 2014
(updated December 30, 2014)

I did some more digging last week and I found a third content poacher!!

This one is a paralegal in Texas who claims to be – a member of the Texas State Bar Paralegal Division and CAPA. (Note: when this was originally posted, the poacher also claimed to be a member of NFPA.) Yes, I reported her to all three entities.inquest

To her credit (and with an obvious dose of sarcasm), the offender pulled the content.  I’m pretty sure, Ms. Inquest felt compelled to remove my language, and advise me of such, because NFPA contacted her about her lapsed membership and told her to remove the reference. (Have I mentioned I’m on the Ethics Board?) Her email reads like the response of one caught with her hand in the proverbial cookie jar:

Contrary to your claim, Inquest Resources did not copy content from your website. After receiving your email, I reviewed your website and was only able to find a single instance where language you have used is substantially similar to language used on the Inquest Resources website. While that language is somewhat similar, the visual presentation and the context in which it is used are very different. Moreover, there is nothing particularly distinctive about the language itself. Instead, these are fairly generic descriptions of the knowledge/experience/dedication Inquest Resources brings to its work and clients. Accordingly, your accusations of plagiarism and copyright infringement are unfounded. [emphasis added]

While Inquest Resources categorically rejects your accusations, Inquest Resources has made alterations to language on its website (as well as Inquest personnel’s individual LinkedIn profiles) as a courtesy.

First the language is “substantially similar”; then it’s “somewhat similar” (because we moved it around a little and substituted the name of our company; yeah, uh huh, right); and finally, the claim that there is “nothing particularly distinctive about the language  . . .”  If that were the case, she wouldn’t have pulled it. For that matter, a simple Google search of the poached content wouldn’t appear as mine for the first 2 or so pages of results, and Facebook & LinkedIn wouldn’t have removed similar content from the other offender’s pages and profiles.

Contrary to Ms. Inquests protests, there is nothing generic about the content and, according to Plagiarism 101 (citing the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary), to plagiarize means:

plagiarism 101

On another note, it’s bad form to claim adherence to the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility when poaching content from another paralegal.

inquest ethics

 

 

 

 

One Response to “The Content/Copyright Battle Wages On”

  1. Pamela the Paralegal

    […] responded – click here for the entire […]

Leave a Reply