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?