Paperchase has published a statement on the contact section of its web site about the alleged copyright theft of work by independent artist Hidden Eloise. The stationery firm said that it purchased the image in good faith from a small London based design company called Gather No Moss.

“[…] In this case, we would like to confirm that Paperchase bought the artwork in question, in good faith, in October 2008, from a well-known central London Design Studio along with a number of other designs. The illustrator who is making the allegation made us aware of her concerns in November 2009 and we duly responded to her in early December, since when we had heard nothing….until today. Back in November 2009, we spoke at length to the Design Studio in question and they categorically denied any plagiarism.”

Gather No Moss also released a statement via Paperchase.

“We have contacted Hidden Eloise by email and are hoping to talk with her soon. We carry the work of designers who like Hidden Eloise are all trying hard to make a living through their art. We would never knowingly sell a design that infringes the copyright of a fellow artist.”

These are robust responses. But Hidden Eloise remains unimpressed either by the tactics or the response from either Paperchase or Gather No Moss – and she has the mob rule of Twitter on her side.

Hidden Eloise’s blog post went viral this afternoon fuelled by the indignation of Twitter users. There is almost certainly a case to answer but the speed with which a story circulates around a network in a case such as this means that basic tenants of journalistic practise are frequently left in its trail.

The Handbook of Journalism published by Thompson Reuters seeks to uphold the highest levels of journalistic integrity set out in its Trust Principals. All major news publishers have similar codes. Reuters has a very clear position on stories sourced via networks.

“It is important to remember that Twitter and similar sites are not sources per se. It is wrong to talk, for example, about picking up Twitter. It makes no more sense to source a story to Twitter than to source it to the internet or an email.”

Reuters is also very clear that a story should have an original source.

“You must source every statement in every story unless it is an established fact or is information clearly in the public domain, such as court documents or in instances when the reporter, photographer or camera operator was on the scene.”

It also a well-defined approach to the principal of fairness when an allegation is made by a third party.

“The act of seeking confirmation of the news before publishing it can lead the organisation to front-run our story and announce the information before we have a chance to put our story out. This does not relieve us of the responsibility to give an organisation a fair chance to comment. […]”

The Paperchase story has followed the first two guidelines but not the third. A story about a third-party propagates through a network until it is directly countered. This is yet another example of how social networks are accelerating the news cycle and don’t necessarily adhere to journalistic standards.

It is telling that Paperchase had not set up a Twitter feed (@FromPaperchase) until today and that its response has been published not on a blog but on the contact page of its web site. Companies must engage in the channels used their customers. And for Paperchase that’s clearly social media.