Less moralistic journalists, copywriters and freelancers were given a bit of a wake-up call this month, and for good reason: the world-famous Huffington Post was forced to make a payment to a news agency after it was accused of stealing stories and not giving credit or consent.

This may sound like common copyright sense, but this kind of thing has been happening for years. Newspapers often copy stories from one another, knowing that the other couldn’t have possibly gotten the story themselves (usual reason: a celeb story that’s been made up, so couldn’t possibly be sourced from elsewhere). However, the world of copywriting is also one of “re-appropriated” news, which often causes problems for businesses and bonafide news reporters alike.

Ultimately, the ruling involving HuffPo sets a precedent.

For those of you who don’t know what happened, the Austria-based Central European News (CEN) demanded that HuffPo pay out after finding that two stories which CEN had sold to a couple of other agencies: the lesser-known Croatian Times and the celeb-hungry Daily Mail, now the second-most read online news resource after the Wall Street Journal. The story wasn’t even that good; it related to Playboy model Nives Celsius signing up to a football team in Croatia. Big whoop. Another was about a singer that went to the Mail, too. It doesn’t matter who, because the article was garbage.

Still, HuffPo, the ad-beleaguered website that upholds a somewhat liberal view to counteract the “hard work” of Richard Littlejohn, Jan Moir and other infamous right-wing commentators (and who can blame them?), took the stories without permission. At least, it seemed that way. Parent company AOL was charged $160 for both stories – $80 for using each one, as well as $80 for using them without asking first. Small change, really, but a point was still made.

Press Gazette said that founder and owner of CEN Michael Leidig was looking for retribution. “I urge other freelancers and agencies to copy CEN’s lead and also send the Huffington Post invoices,” he said. “They seem to think that because they take the hard work of the real news community and shuffle the words around, that they are somehow in the news business. They can huff and puff all they like as long as they pay – maybe then they’ll appreciate fully the tough economic world we all have to live in.”

In further conversation with the excellent British journalism resource, media lawyer Bill Lister – who represented CEN – was quick to state something to strike fear into the hearts of lazier copywriting contingents everywhere. “If the story has been done completely differently there can still be a copyright claim if you can show the story has been taken as a starting point and altered,” he said.

“Uh oh,” said my colleague Fay Nyberg, after highlighting the ruling minutes after it was released. “We have to ensure we don’t take the easy route like so many others.” She’s right. It’s not fair on clients, nor ourselves, to do this; after all, when it’s our names going on the work, the one thing we pride ourselves on is giving our partners what they want, while ensuring we fulfil our moral duty to be fresh, original and succinct.

The margin of error is smaller than ever. Press Gazette underlined how Mr Lister had referred to National Licensing Agency v Meltwater, which highlighted how 11 copied words alone could be an infringement of copyright.

While AOL’s Mario Ruiz later said that a lack of invoices was simply an error of paperwork and a mistake regarding the usual policy of fair use, the point still remains: copywriters cannot afford to dance around the subject of “creative re-appropriation”. Work hard, find your own content and, if you’re struggling, buy it. It’s simple.

Have you found examples of flagrant copyright infringement? Share your examples as well as any thoughts on this case.

-@matthewgardner