Hello -
Here is a scenario, representative of something that I just saw play out.
- Site A is a new blog about travel (as an example topic)
- Site B is an older, established blog about travel
- Site C is a new blog launched and owned by Site B that focuses on a particular travel niche (luxury travel, for example)
Here is what happens next
- Site A writes an original piece of content
- Site C then republishes Site A's content, paraphrasing all of the text, but giving Site A credit with a link
- Site B (the established site) publishes a blurb about the article, directing readers with a link to "read more" on Site C. It credits Site A as the original author, but does not link to it.
If you were able to follow that, here is what I would like to know.
Did Site C do anything wrong by republishing a paraphrased version of Site A's content, even though it gave credit with a link?
Did Site B do anything wrong by linking to Site C (which is for all intents and purposes the same website), but not linking to Site A (the original source)?
My sense is that the established blog (Site B) is trying to get it's new publication (Site C) to outrank the original author (Site A) using its own content. In general though, I am curious to get some thoughts on this situation because it raises a few ethical questions that I am not sure about, namely:
Is there anything wrong with publishing "spun" content, if it is done well and links back to the source?
Is there anything wrong with linking to a republished version of an article on a sister website, rather than linking to the original article.
Thanks
