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

It is odd. And, zazen, I think you must have agreed to the T&C when you signed up.

The posts finance the site whether they are in one of the books or just on the website itself. The advertisers wouldn't buy space if there wasn't user-generated content to keep the readership high enough.

How can people be so blind as to the economic underpinnings of this website? And why so hostile? We spend our lives sustaining one business or another by what we buy, what we watch, etc. And MN is an eithical enough business.

"Can you tell I'm getting cheesed off with MN's blatant and illegal theft of our posts, set down here in good faith, and their obvious profit from our stolen expertise?"

this seems odd to me - when there is a ruddy great message at the top of the talkboards, what is your good faith based on? Good faith that the Ruddy Great Message isn't true? I'm confused

There have been previous Mumsnet books over the years - it's one of the ways that Mumsnet makes money so that it can operate

I don't see the ishooo myself

Interesting discussion - so the MN guides are just our posts put into a book?

How are the profits being used?

Yes MP But I didn't sign anything to that effect when I signed up, so legally that's just a fart in the wind TBH.

And no they actually don't take the rap - their limited company does, and no doubt has a contingency fund set up - insurance and the like - if they are sensible at all about their business.
And if they used me, or anyone competent as a legal adviser, for Ip Copyright and the interwebs they wouldn't have to take any rap in any jurisdiction!!!

Can you tell I'm getting cheesed off with MN's blatant and illegal theft of our posts, set down here in good faith, and their obvious profit from our stolen expertise?

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

Have to agree with you

There has always been a ruddy great notice at the top of the Talkboards (when you go Musmnet > Talk) saying that MN are allowed to use your posts in whatever way they like and come round to your house for tea and cake without asking

Yes, that's right neenztwinz, copyright is a totally separate issue, and will depend on the Terms and Conditions of the site.

The Intellectual property of the idea of the bulletin board is held by who ever invented bulletin boards (not necessarily in their electronic form): ditto for Blogs / Diaries.

But if there is a new idea posted on a bulletin board or in a blog hosted my MN - such as a fail safe method for making a baby go asleep, or a 100% guaranteed recipe for a self supporting birthday cake construction, say in the shape of Big Ben, then it will depend on MN's TnCs as to who has the IP and copyright on that idea.

If I have a fabby idea about a way of doing something / a new invention / a new song etc I would be fool to post about it in the public arena without first claiming the IP, and patenting it if it was commercial - .

To claim the copyright of an idea, and the IP you can lodge the idea into a copyright bank. Or have proof with a notary, or just have proof by posting it to yourself with a dated stamped letter (obviously don't open the letter!!).

As far as I know I didn't sign any T and C from MN when I registered. And I cannot find any T and C in the registration page now which allow MN to publish any of my posts without my prior consent. Anyone want to post a link? I've trawled through and still can't find it.

I think MN are in pretty murky waters with this one. Nowhere have I seen anything which overrides my automatic right to hold the copyright on the material I post.

Have a look at Copyright service

Their argument could be that the posts have no merit, and are not by experts - original methodology to getting a baby to sleep, or not - but we have to ask - if the posts have no merit, how come they are all going towards a book which obviously has merit?

So these posts to which we hold the copyright, obviously DO have merit, and MN is publishing them as their own, without our prior consent and agreement of terms.

Yes, that's right neenztwinz, copyright is a totally separate issue, and will depend on the Terms and Conditions of the site.

The Intellectual property of the idea of the bulletin board is held by who ever invented bulletin boards (not necessarily in their electronic form): ditto for Blogs / Diaries.

But if there is a new idea posted on a bulletin board or in a blog hosted my MN - such as a fail safe method for making a baby go asleep, or a 100% guaranteed recipe for a self supporting birthday cake construction, say in the shape of Big Ben, then it will depend on MN's TnCs as to who has the IP and copyright on that idea.

If I have a fabby idea about a way of doing something / a new invention / a new song etc I would be fool to post about it in the public arena without first claiming the IP, and patenting it if it was commercial - .

To claim the copyright of an idea, and the IP you can lodge the idea into a copyright bank. Or have proof with a notary, or just have proof by posting it to yourself with a dated stamped letter (obviously don't open the letter!!).

As far as I know I didn't sign any T and C from MN when I registered. And I cannot find any T and C in the registration page now which allow MN to publish any of my posts without my prior consent.

I think MN are in pretty murky waters with this one. Nowhere have I seen anything which overrides my automatic right to hold the copyright on the material I post.

Have a look at {{http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk Copyright service]]

Their argument could be that the posts have no merit, and are not by experts - original methodology to getting a baby to sleep, or not - but we have to ask - if the posts have no merit, how come they are all going towards a book which obviously has merit?

So these posts to which we hold the copyright, obviously DO have merit, and MN is publishing them as their own, without our prior consent and agreement of terms.

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

I thought edam was dutch?

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?

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.

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?

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

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

here's one

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?

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!!

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

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?