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

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

57 replies

lingle · 03/02/2009 19:39

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.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
zazen · 05/02/2009 00:45

That's good Justine,
I'm glad you are getting some expert legal advice because you do need to be in the business you are in

As you no doubt know now, people have to opt in by signing or ticking and agreeing to TnC.

Just assuming they read some general disclaimer published in small print at the bottom of the page, without having a check box to click that they have read and understood the terms and conditions of the site is morally and legally wrong.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 05/02/2009 00:19

Thanks for all the advice folks. As we've said we are in the process of reviewing right now.

Zazen - you're right in that there's no tick box but our copyright note has always been in our Welcome note on the Talk home page and in our disclaimer at the bottom of every page. As we've said we've certainly never tried to hoodwink anyone. But we'll get it looked at for sure not least because our legal position as an "online publisher" seems to be changing as each test case gets fought.

Best,
MNHQ

zazen · 04/02/2009 23:41

Not true Swedes, as Lingle pointed out - the earlier registration page DID NOT include a tick box for agreement to terms and conditions.

"Helen, Justine, yes, you do need to change your statement. You need to state clearly that in return for free use of the forum, we agree that you can reproduce our posts in such form as you choose - ie you need to come as close as possible to making it contractual. And tbh for new users you need a tick box saying just that when they sign up (too late for existing users - you'll have to keep relying on implied licence granted as a result of the existing/improved notice).
"

I have extensive experience of publishing online, and offline, and have been an IP consultant and trainer. I run a fairly contentious political website - with a high potential to exposure to legal action - and have to say that MN show themselves up as being badly advised and unprofessional on this consent and owernership of comments issue. I bet they even host their site in the UK! [hock]

And yes, I'm Po'd by this as it seems that MN just blindly waltzed in to this trouble and now say - but it was there as a ruddy great sign, when in fact when I registered it wasn't there in the T n Cs. So that's a lie MN! Pants on Fire

Swedes · 04/02/2009 21:24

Actually as you have to join Mumsnet and sign their assignment prior to posting on the talkboard, you don't get to be first owner of copyright of your posts. Mumsnet actually own your posts before you post them.

Swedes · 04/02/2009 20:20

The author or creator of the work is the first owner of any copyright on it. Unless the work is done in the course of paid employment.

The copyright has been transferred to Mumsnet by assignment I assume?

UnquietDad · 04/02/2009 19:56

lingle - I don't recall, sorry - will try and track down details!

morningpaper · 04/02/2009 19:17

But it isn't a collection of letters: it is a summary of advice distilled from threads, using sentences from odd posts on such threads to illustrate the summary of advice

does that clear things up

Tamarto · 04/02/2009 18:15

So a paper quoting everything i've ever written on here, not right.

Quoting one post...

Original poster
lingle · 04/02/2009 18:11

what happened re human canonball unquiet? did it go to court?

OP posts:
Original poster
lingle · 04/02/2009 18:10

yes neenztwinz that's right (like everything else that you've said). Reporting current events is one of the permitted purposes so fair use can apply there.

So The Times reports that Princess Di wrote "I love Dodi because he makes me laugh" in a letter. Maybe (big maybe) fair dealing (ignore privacy and other issues here).

But then publishers bring out a collected edition of Di letters. Very different.

OP posts:
UnquietDad · 04/02/2009 18:09

There is a big argument going on about blog entries and livejournal entries and whethe hey constitute a "complete work". To post a complete Simon Armitage poem, for example, would be in breach of copyright as, even though it could be as few as ten lines, it's the whole work.

There was a very interesting test case involving a "Human cannonball" whose entire act, lasting 11 seconds, was filmed and broadcast by a TV company without his permission.

neenztwinz · 04/02/2009 17:58

But newspapers could claim fair use when using MN quotes.

Original poster
lingle · 04/02/2009 17:31

unless of course you've already done this in terms and conditions! I can't remember! LOL and blush if I've already ticked a box!

Fair use is irrelevant here. Each post (except perhaps those with only a handful of words) is a separate copyright work and reproducing the whole post for a profitable book is never going to be fair use. Think of each post as a letter. Now think of publishing a book of Pricess Diana's letters and claiming "fair use". See what I mean? It's a question of licence/contract.

OP posts:
Original poster
lingle · 04/02/2009 17:22

Helen, Justine, yes, you do need to change your statement. You need to state clearly that in return for free use of the forum, we agree that you can reproduce our posts in such form as you choose - ie you need to come as close as possible to making it contractual. And tbh for new users you need a tick box saying just that when they sign up (too late for existing users - you'll have to keep relying on implied licence granted as a result of the existing/improved notice).

As you'll know, you own the compilation copyright in your books. And whilst xenia (for instance) can publish a "working mum's guide" consisting exclusively of Xenia posts, she can't use anyone else's posts without their permission so there's no risk of an "unofficial" guide consisting of mumsnet posts unless an awful lot of us get together

OP posts:
morningpaper · 04/02/2009 11:19

hehe they are all MOANING meanwhile blatantly ripping their avatars off the BBC

Swedes · 04/02/2009 11:19

Fair use

morningpaper · 04/02/2009 11:18

GAH look at the first comment - what is that avator? Dr Who waggling his crotch?

UnquietDad · 04/02/2009 11:16

LOL at "goths of the internet"

They got so angry - morningpaper I think you'd be amused if you have time to read it.

morningpaper · 04/02/2009 11:13

Livejournalists are weird though aren't they

they think the telly is all REAL and that Barrowman is only gay because he hasn't met them yet

They are the goths of the internet

UnquietDad · 04/02/2009 11:10

This is related and may be interesting. A guy who wrote an unofficial published guide to Torchwood got into trouble recently - despite not having breached any copyright laws - for quoting extensive reviews from livejournal. You would not believe the vitriol that came his way from the livejournalers - and, mainly female, they ended up accusing him (quite wrongly) of sexism.

The whole sorry thing is detailed here if people are interested.

crumpet · 04/02/2009 11:10

If you don't like it or want it then don't post. Simple. The conditions were never hidden from you and frankly in this day and age it is naive to post without understanding beforehand what is going to happen to those posts.

To argue the toss after the event is not good faith...

WilfSell · 04/02/2009 11:09

I also think the reality is that people who write or are trying to write for a living understand not to spread all their content around too freely. They save it for their own 'work' which they know they can control.

So if you're upset about all your bon mots ending up in a MN book, my best advice would be: write your own book...

Threadworm · 04/02/2009 11:06

Yes, that's right re fair use. E.g. for books you can generally make quotes of up to around four hundred words (and other similar conditions) without seeking permission.

morningpaper · 04/02/2009 11:01

Agree threadworm

And if lawyers are so clever why is it always LAWYERS that come on here saying I DIDN'T REALISE IT WORKED LIKE THIS YOU BASTARDS when everyone else knows exactly how it works? HMMMMMMM?????

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 04/02/2009 11:01

Hello - we have posted on this here.

We are actually in the process of asking our book agents to look at our wording re copyright, which as was pointed out on this thread, is a wee bit austere. (We did just pilfer it from some other website a few years back).

Incidentally newspapers are legally able to lift short quotes from books and websites without permission - it's a clause called fair reporting or summat like that. Someone legal will know...

Swipe left for the next trending thread