I was just reading through the CMX release of Emma, and I happened to look at the back. There was a blurb written by Jim Chadwick, and I noticed that a good amount of it (80-85%) was either paraphrased or lifted directly out of the Wikipedia article... which I wrote. I realized it when the words "English maid cosplay" were put in order. But compare the "Overview" section of the Wikipedia article and the blurb, and it's spot on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_%28anime_and_manga%29

Okay, that's the second in my great achievements concerning Emma (the first being finding Emma's house in London). Woo-hoo!

Congratulations!

You have a copy! Lucky bastard! I hope my comic shop gets it this weekend. ;_;

So where exactly is Emma's house? : D

And I knew it seemed familiar when I read it! I was hoping they'd put something akin to Whispers' guide to help explain some of the things, but I guess not T-T

No Emma in my area yet.

Couldn't find Emma this past weekend...

So sad...

>>4

http://iitran.secchan.net/img/res/884.html

As I recall, there are significant differences (the Energy Institute building has a basement door down there, while Emma's house has nothing below the first floor outside), but nice coincidence.

Finally purchased Emma Vol 1!

A section at the end titled "Welcome to Emma's World..." Hmm, that sounds familiar somehow. :)

So, in other words... the CMX edition is guilty of plagiarism in the case of the cover blurb, and plagiarism in the case of the end notes.

I'm not at all surprised (we did make our version pretty definitive), and I don't suppose they could attribute "their" work to us (then they'd have to pay us, after all). But it still annoys me to have our work being passed off as theirs.

• FON

I don't think their "Welcome to Emma's World" is similar enough to "Whisper's Guide to Emma's World" to warrant a plagiarism claim. I think it would benefit if it WAS more similar, since it gives only the barest of historical notes.