Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Our comments, in MN books, who owns our collective wisdom?

258 replies

Wotzy · 28/01/2009 22:28

Who owns our comments?

We can request them to be removed from this forum, but not in print. In posting we give consent for them to be on MN on the web, but does that extend to publication in a book.

I am not looking for a fight, it is a serious question, who owns the copyright to our words, if they are in publication? Was there consent to have our collective words printed in a book?

OP posts:
Original poster
Wotzy · 29/01/2009 12:03

Blu I take your point. However, those that just dip in and out of MN may not be aware of their publishing activities, or noticed it was discussed back in 2004 or bother to read the 'small print'. It won't actually bother many members either, and will be seen as a lot of fuss about nothing.

As I said it is a universal consideration as the web becomes more widely used as a platform to share personal experiences and who is able to use that information and in what context. Not everyone is aware of copyright issues, you are in publishing, so you do have a better understanding of it than many I expect.

OP posts:
Threadworm · 29/01/2009 11:54

Boffinmum:

"Some of my stuff is already owned by me and my publisher anyway in IP terms, they can't just decide to acquire it legally for free,"

Are you really posting up copyrighted extracts from your work onto MN?!!!

If that is the case, then I imagine you are either breaching your publisher's copyright by reproducing the material here (if your publisher has the copyright), or you are simply exercising your own right to pass the material to MN for its legitimate use (if you own the copyright).

crumpet · 29/01/2009 11:54

Yes - good luck with the book. I remember the first one beign published!

Threadworm · 29/01/2009 11:43

Agree entirely, blu

Blu · 29/01/2009 11:41

Good for MN!

I think it is naive in extreme for anyone actually involved in publishing their own work to use extracts on the WWW and not to have thought about copyright beforehand. ...MN have always been upfront about their publishing activities, and it has been discussed widely and is on the 'small print'. If it is going to be something that bothers you, check beforehand!

I think many of us find it easy to pass on a nugget or two of invaluable experience or wisdom in an online coversation but that isn't the same as writing or compiling a whole book. Newspapers, magazines and books often include RL quotes from people used as case studies, and they might be credited as 'Sue Jones, mother of 3 says...' and they don't get paid. I myself have contributed in this way many times (knowing a few jounalists and writers as i do!). In using MN-ers quotes, MN are simply doing that, ely. I think it's a bit much to wat more than the provision of the facility of MN in return....and lets face it, we all benefit from other people's FREE advice and expertise here - has anyone ever paid another poster for advice which may have saved their sanity, marriage or a huge household bill? NO!

MNHQ: Good luck with the book.

Threadworm · 29/01/2009 11:39

Is that right, Justine -- that you set up the site in order to support parents, and that the money you make from it is just to facilitate the site's existence?

I had always assumed that it was set up in order to generate profit but that you wanted to generate profit conscientiously by running a site that was genuinely supportive.

I don't intend in the least to be dismissive or cynical by asking this question, I'm just interested.

VampiresWalkin · 29/01/2009 11:35

Can we have a list of all the names in the book so we know to go hunt out our mentions?

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 29/01/2009 11:35

And yes we can flag up the copyright issue on the join page - give us a wee while as there are big things afoot in the shed right now.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 29/01/2009 11:34

The whole purpose of the site really isn't to make money Wotzy - the whole purpose of the site is to make parents' lives easier by pooling info - we need to make some money to be able to run it, is all.

We are fortunate enough not to have shareholders or owners baying for profits. In fact we have the opposite - we have our members (and ourselves for that matter) baying for restraint!

Original poster
Wotzy · 29/01/2009 11:31

Thanks Justine

Could Tech include the agreement of copyright prior to joining. I think this will be more evident and more upfront, for all members.

Of course i understand the whole purpose of any site is to make money and your ethics are far better than most other sites of this nature.

OP posts:
MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 29/01/2009 11:31

Fio - the opt out caused so much work and confusion at HQ (name changes etc) last time that we decided not to. Also many people who asked to opt out, told us afterwards that they'd wished they hadn't...

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 29/01/2009 11:29

That's interesting Crumpet - will look at that - seems a better way of doing it doesn't it?

FioFio · 29/01/2009 11:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

VampiresWalkin · 29/01/2009 11:25

Blooming marvellous has gone into administration???

Lizzylou · 29/01/2009 11:25

I'm not cross/concerned, as long as I'm in it

crumpet · 29/01/2009 11:24

I've always been aware that MN held the copyright and never had an issue with that, as Justine said it is pretty standard (see bad Mother's Club: "The contents of the Site are protected by international copyright laws and other intellectual property rights. The owners of these rights are Bad Mothers Club Limited or other third party licensors.

All Content submitted to us will become the property of Bad Mothers Club Limited throughout the world except any portion of the material that is Personal Information or Features commissioned and paid for on a single use basis."

Interestingly a quick look at the BBC's (OK so not a commercial organisation) terms of use show a slightly different slant, as the BBC has the right to effectively treat the material as if it did own the copyright (including publishing in other media etc), but the copyright itself remains with the user:

Contributions to the BBC

  1. By sharing any contribution (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) with the BBC you agree to grant to the BBC, free of charge, permission to use the material in any way it wants (including modifying and adapting it for operational and editorial reasons) for BBC services in any media worldwide (including on the BBC's site accessed by international users). In certain circumstance the BBC may also share your contribution with trusted third parties*.
  1. Copyright in your contribution will remain with you and this permission is not exclusive, so you can continue to use the material in any way including allowing others to use it.
LeninGrad · 29/01/2009 11:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BitOfFun · 29/01/2009 11:17

Thanks justine- I've got no problem with that, looking forward to the books

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 29/01/2009 11:04

Hello Wotzy and everyone - thanks for raising this - we always happy to clarify these things.

First we're not trying to hide anything - it's pretty much convention for disclaimers/copyright/ advertising notices to be the bottom links on websites I think and it's also pretty standard for sites to own copyright over your posts but we have no problem with making it more prominent on the join MN page if folk would like us to.

The reason we are doing the books is threefold:

  1. To take all the brilliant and funny advice that gets posted on here every day and to sort it and put it in a compact and portable form. We think there's really something in the pooling of knowledge and experience so that you get a collective wisdom and importantly the idea that there's no one right way of doing things. If the MN books are going to have one overriding principle then it's just that: "There's more than one way to skin a cat". In short we thought we could create some fabulous and really helpful books. Books that are modern, democratic, funny and that you can be proud of owning because of all those reasons. A parenting manual you can leave on your coffee table and not be embarrassed about.
  1. To spread the word about MN because we think it's useful - and folks should know about it.
  1. To make some dosh. We need cash to pay for the site as we don't charge for access (and don't want to). We have lots of costs now - fancy servers, people, office, shed, Morning Papers exorbitant round up fee, not to mention sausage rolls. Yes we have advertising but we are quite restricted about what advertising we'll take and by whom - we probably turn down as much as we take. We reject a lot of companies and formats - SMA, Milupa, Nestle, Macdonalds have all waved big cheques in front of us in the last year or so - cheques that most other parenting sites would snaffle up. We did not and we're quite happy not to because merciless pursuit of profits is not what we're about (we didn't earn a salary for the first 5 or so years of MN for goodness sake) but it means that if you want a site that runs well we have to be smart about how we fund it.

Bear in mind also that not surprisingly it's tough out there in the advertising market world and probably going to get tougher - we were very much hoping that one big putative ad campaign was going to tide us over for the next little while but it's just been pulled. Blooming Marvellous has gone into administration owing us a fair bit of cash - if we are to avoid the pitfalls of being entirely reliant on advertising which is I gather very cyclical, then we need to have some other strings to our bow.

With regard to your point about it being different when your words are in a book than being on a screen well we can kind of see your point - but folks do post freely and your information is easily accessible and searchable to a huge audience via MN and also Google, a much bigger audience that the one for MN books. But I suppose there is a certain element of trust needed that we won't twist your words or shame or sensationalise. You have to make that call yourself of course about the type of people we are and if you think for one moment that we might, then you absolutely shouldn't risk posting. All I can say is that our aim has been to create a brilliant resource for parents - as MN is - based on the principle of collective, rather than expert wisdom. I really think we've achieved that and that MP has compiled the first book with complete integrity to the spirit of MN (and buy extension to it's members).

It should be out any day now in the shops, so you'll have a chance to see and hopefully feel a bit less cross/ concerned.

As said we are happy to make the copyright notice more prominent if people would be happier with that.

Best,
MNHQ

Original poster
Wotzy · 29/01/2009 10:37

QS, that's interesting to see how other sites request permission.

Sparkles, hi. No I am not important enough for MNhq to bother with...

OP posts:
QS · 29/01/2009 10:14

Many moons ago, when I was posting on Netmums, and they did their book, all the posters who had posted parenting advice that they wanted to use in their book, was contacted, and shown the paragraph they wanted to use. (I know, as I was contacted several times to "ok" it)

I think that was a very honest way of doing it. Upfront, and fair.

sparklesandwine · 29/01/2009 10:06

hmm....i see your point Wotz

i know very little about the books (the new or previous ones) and have no idea how they are set out/worded in the books

has anyone from mnhq come in to chat with you about it yet wotz?

BitOfFun · 29/01/2009 09:51

I suppose the prior permission thing is tricky though...many of the funniest wisest MNers are also more sensible about their privacy than me, as evidenced by the relative lack of profile pages. Surely these same posters would be likely to tick the "safe" option No, if they were asked on joining? Then we'd only get books full of garbage from the likes of me

Original poster
Wotzy · 29/01/2009 09:47

I can see I'm going to have to log off. It's a IP issue that is universal to the web, not just MN.

OP posts:
Original poster
Wotzy · 29/01/2009 09:46

But in the public domain you can request all your post to be removed. You can 't do that in print. It is more and more common for sites to sue 'us ' as sources of information, it's what they do with it, after it is posted that bothers me.

If it was a quick witty line or two then fine, like Mpapers round up, I'm OK with that, but where does it end?

OP posts: