Kudos to Luke Smith! We've been experiencing a rather similar problem recently over at thebbps - we've broken a number of Hudson related stories over the past month, and yet we're only given credit by about half the blogs that report them. It's nice to know that even the big boys share in my frustration.

I wish more writers and big sites would step up and say this. It's tiresome.

I notice some of the larger sites also seem to wait until "friendly" sites get the news and then credit that site with it, rather than the originator.

So, basically, if a small site has a scoop, they'll get credited by a handful of sites, while twice as many will link to Kotaku or Joystiq who stole it from some other blog that it didn't originate from either.

It's tiresome.

Saying it is one thing. The question is whether 1Up lives up to its own standards. (I mostly ignore 1Up for site design reasons.)

Wasn't it 1Up that had a plagerism claim levied against a DoA guide, only to later claim it an accident?

A GameSpot editorial made a big deal about other sites "stealing" images from GameSpot. This led to a brief bit of fun on a few message boards where posters talked about all the images GameSpot had posted over the years without permission (ranging from magazine scans to fan art.)

Similar stories could be told for IGN and others. It doesn't seem uncommon for game sites to take the moral high ground when they feel themselves a victim, but to not live up to that high ground in return.

I second Tony completely. It's especially annoying when some site who copied your exclusive (and doesn't credit you prominently or at all) gets all the credit. Luckily, I haven't had too much trouble with this recently, as most major sites (and most smaller ones) are willing to respect my work. I just leave it up to the linkers to honor my content, usually with a polite request, and usually it works. You just have to remember that it's impossible to completely control your content on the Internet, so try to get the most out of it while you can. Eventually the original source of the info will be diluted or lost, but by then you will have moved on to other stories, right?

There's not much else you can do about it. It's not like most bloggers are trained journalists who have taken ethics classes. After all, I'm not.

But heck, I've got friends that are seasoned old-media journalists who've told me that scoops get stolen all the time in their business (even by and from "ethical" outlets), and it sucks -- but it's just part of the job.

Like RedWolf says, its part of the job.

I myself have a blog that's video game centric, so I often cross-post stuff that I've found elsewhere, generally news items already reported from the major news sites. Though I mostly find all my info on message boards, which is a major component of the dispersal of information, and part of the problem to an extent.

There's this belief, and even I've fallen into a similar line of thinking that, once a news item is reported on a message board, say Gaming Age Forums, its all of a sudden "free game". The info has been delivered by some unknown party (usually at most you have is some internet "alias"), and often when it discovered by that source and later repeated, the source is never cited. Many feel its unnecessary.

Another thing to consider is what folks on message board often disclose genuine first-run headline material, and sometimes they want to be anoymous. That's when things really begin to blur as to who's saying what, and when. I'm not offering an excuse, just one facet as to why things might be the way they are.

Speaking of the GAF, these days everyone tries to play nice and its insisted that original sources be mentioned whenever possible. As for myself, I try to play nice and pass along a link if I talk about something I found there... unless its something which I feel is "commonly" known. Like blah, blah, blah game coming out on XYZ date. Because, who cares, right? Maybe that's a piss poor attitude, but then again, I'm not IGN. So should they have higher standards and morals to maintain, since they're bigger? Maybe yes, maybe no?

Though as Baines pointed out, this does indeed feel like the pot calling the kettle black once again. At the very least, this feels like another instance of Ziff "calling someone out", which again is not such a bad thing in itsellf, but given their history of not just brushing aside accusation of plagiarism on their end (i.e. a few of their editor's reactions to the DoA guide scandal), though also of trying to make a big circus out of it (I apologize for the not remembering the details, but I recall one editor in the pages of EGM telling people to shape up or ship out in a rather confrontation tone which seemed all bark but no bite), one can't but help roll their eyes.

After-all, and not to cause further drama, but when I got the link via the weekly 1UP email newsletter, I was curious why it's accompanying tag was all about: "You've no doubt seen News stories where we've linked to either IGN or Gamespot -- widely regarded as our biggest competitors in the enthusiast press (Simon Carless and Alexa politely disagree). " Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this does kinda feel like yet another attention grabbing shtick. But then again, all's fair in love and journalism.

I don't work on blogs or anything, I'm just a casual reader, but I don't understand why there should be any reference to the original article.
It doesn't seem to be standard practice in the other news media and AFAIC 1up doesn't own a copyright on everything Rare employees wants to do.
I do understand that it's bad if the following blog just make a copy+paste of the news snippet and the best thing to do would be to do a bit of personal research on the story before posting about it, but why should 1up be systematically associated to a piece of news about Rare?
Blahgs should find better ways to compete for audience than to become anal about who posted the news first.

As someone who works for magazines and publishers, I have one thing to say to moi - think how you would feel if someone else just copied a piece you'd dedicated actual work and effort to, didn't even acknowledge you, and then went on to get credit for your work. It's expected, particularly in news, that your stuff is going to get used elsewhere, but the original writer deserves at least a mention. Credit where credit's due.

Grande sito!!