Vox populi is being heard again. Neil Gaiman tweeted about Hidden Eloise and how her work has been plagiarised by Paperchase. You can guess what happened.
In this internet powered age it is an indisputable fact that bad news can travel very quickly indeed. It certainly did in this case. Word spread as this was retweeted. The Amazon product page for the Paperchase item was visited by people who commented on Paperchase’s behaviour and asked Amazon to withdraw the item. A couple of hours later and lo, the product page is a 404 (not working, not there).
A number of people commented on Hidden Eloise’s blog that they had written to Paperchase. Paperchase are now reported to be claiming that they purchased the image in good faith from a London Design Studio.
Whether they did or not, Paperchase’s apparent conduct towards Eloise is unacceptable. Once they were made aware that there was an issue with the image use they should have investigated properly and held back further distribution of products using the image. Paperchase may believe they were acting in good faith with the design studio but where was the good in their conduct towards Eloise?
Will Paperchase be publishing a full account of from whom the image was purchased and how the image was presented to them? Will Paperchase be publishing a list of the actions they undertook to verify the image was owned by the design studio in the first place? Will Paperchase be compensating Eloise appropriately for the misuse of the image she created?
If the design studio was at fault then Paperchase should make a public statement naming the agency concerned and confirming that their involvement with said agency is terminated.
Come on Paperchase, let’s have a full explanation of names and dates. If you claim to have been acting in good faith then prove your honesty now by coming completely clean.