I noticed it says "Please note that Mumsnet has copyright in all submissions to Mumsnet Talk"

[lingle]

I noticed it says "Please note that Mumsnet has copyright in all submissions to Mumsnet Talk" still despite the makeover.

You'd need an assignment in writing signed by the assignor for that. I think you're trying to say you want an exclusive royalty-free perpetual licence? A royalty-free perpetual licence is reasonable - not an exclusive one though.

[whomovedmychocolate]

It's always said that. Actually when you sign up to the site you agree to it.

[Simplysally]

I think most websites reserve the intellectual properties of submissions for the owners. In case we tried printing our own version of Mumsnet anecdotes.

[whomovedmychocolate]

Also mumsnet DO use this stuff for books etc.

Conversely, they do take the rap when we say stupid stuff (babies/rockets comments etc.) so it's fair really.

[SenoraPostrophe]

but according to lingle, we would be able to do that wouldn't we? I could write a book entited senorapostrophes's super advice. it would be a short book but I could. I just couldn't put your posts in it.

I don't know though.

lingle, are you a law student? (as lawyers don't say stuff for free like that)

[SenoraPostrophe]

wmc - ah, but they didn't take the rap for the babies on rockets thing. they settled out of court, which is not the same.

[Simplysally]

It could be argued and probably would be that by signing up to the T&Cs of the site and posting your pearls of wisdom, you have agreed to them by deed.

[neenztwinz]

Lingle, so what you mean is Mumsnet can use anything we write here in their books etc, but cannot say it has the "copyright" to it ie that no one else can use it except them?

[whomovedmychocolate]

SP - the fact that they spent so long in court and settled shows they did take the rap. The person who wrote it wasn't personally held liable were they?

[SenoraPostrophe]

there was still no ruling though, nd there has been no precedent. but I think there have been cases of individual posters being sued. it's just they're less likely to have any dosh.

i think i read that...will check

[neenztwinz]

But libel and copyright are two separate matters. You can hold copyright to something libellous but not actually be guilty of the libel (if someone else wrote it)

I think!!

[Tortington]

id like to know how this is seen regardinguser names - as i had this name before and since on other sites -i consider my Handle mine, does MNHQ considerit theirs?

[SenoraPostrophe]

here's one

[neenztwinz]

Interesting Senora... from what I remember from my law degree the publisher of a libellous comment is guilty of the libel too so mn could be held accountable but it still has nothing to do with copyright.

[zazen]

You can be found guilty of publishing libelous material even if you didn't write it.

Of course there are other factors: which jurisdiction the site is hosted in - i.e. from where the comments are published and where they are 'stored', and whether there is an individual or a limited liability company responsible for the publication.

[edam]

oh, don't start that one flying, Custy, or I'll be in real trouble!

• The opinions expressed by the poster known as edam are her own and should not be taken as any reflection on the fine people of Edam which I'm sure is a very nice town, or on the Danish dairy industry which has no opinions at all on baby names, breast v. bottle, grapes in the supermarket or 4x4s.

[neenztwinz]

That's right Zazen, but owning the copyright to something does not make you guilty of a libel.

[SenoraPostrophe]

but chatboard owners are not publishers in the normal sense.

anyway I know copyright and libel are not the same thing...we were just talking about the give and take of our relationship with mn.

lol at edam and username copyright. i bet if your username was mcdonalds hough you'd be hearing about it.

[NattyPlus2andAHalf]

i thought that copyright meant that only the person with the copyright could use the text.
so does that mean that the newpapers are breaking copyright because they published a number of posts by MNetters over christmas? (i assume without permission)

[neenztwinz]

They may have had permission (all publicity is good publicity)

[NattyPlus2andAHalf]

hmm i suppose they could. just thought that MN had had enough bad press atm, and that maybe they wouldnt want much more.
silly me!
but im right arnt i? so MN gave the papers permission to publish others posts. the posters werent asked tho, is that legal?

[foxytocin]

isn't it that both the site and the contributor of the rockets/lebanon post named in the suit? In that case, since no precedent was set, it shows that both may still 'own' the comments hence MN can't say they own the copyright?

just musing. i know nothing of these things.

[neenztwinz]

I think it's OK for MN to give permission for posts to be re-published cos that's what we sign up for when we register, but it still doesn't mean they own the "copyright".

Where's lingle?

[Habbibu]

I thought edam was dutch?

[HelenMumsnet]

Hello, everyone.

It's pretty standard, we think, for sites to own copyright over your posts. But we are aware that our copyright notice needs a bit of tinkering with - see this thread

We'll get to it as soon as we can

[foxytocin]

if MN owns the copyright, why were MN and MP named in the suit by GF? Anyone knows?