To think the Daily Mail are taking the piss?

[DailyFailAreABunchOfCunts]

As you may infer from my NN I am not a fan. However I saw this on today's Mail online:

DM Link

For those who don't want to click it, the DM have mined the recent thread from a poster who lost her DS at a young age, and was asking if she WBU to still buy clothes for him and join clubs. I remember the thread as it was really moving and so clear that the poster was struggling with her grief.

The Mail has lifted the story - and the child's name - lock, stock and barrel. I'd be interested in MNHQ's view on this. I realise that posts are in the public domain but this feels so horribly invasive.

No response on my tweet yet. I will update if I get one. A few likes from others but nothing from the "journalist"

It must be a pretty shitty job if all you do is trawl forums for stories to lift verbatim. Not really journalism.

It doesn't read like the OP was contacted. It's pretty much a cut and paste job. Shoddy and offensive work. That thread was heartbreaking. The Fail really is gutter press.

But Palomb - it comes back to that 'expectation of privacy' concept. Maybe I need to update my expectations, but I do not expect to post on a parenting forum, looking for support, and for that post then to be used by another publication. Yes, I have no problem with people reading my post here - I chose to put it here, but I do not think that it's correct that everything on the internet is now a free-for-all. I don't think that's unreasonable either.
I am perfectly aware that the experts of the internet will come on and tell me how naive, gullible, stupid and idiotic I am, but I'm actually not.

I'm careful in protecting my anonymity, but not everyone is as cynical. Mumsnet should not allow any usage in my opinion, without a poster's consent. Now, if there is a 'fair usage' thingy out there that would supersede that, fair enough, but given how media has changed, the legislation needs to change also.

Am so fed up with this.
I suspect if I picked loads of threads from Classics and produced my own book called "Mums say the funniest things" that HQ would be able to do something about that ?

*Waves to the Daily Failers!

TooLazyToWriteMyOwnFuckinPiece Course they could...

I can answer that then FelicityR313. The Daily Mail, or anyone else, can use about a third of direct content under 'fair use' with impunity. They appear to have used a great deal more than that, so MNHQ could take them on for damages and an apology - which would go to them, not the OP or anyone else who contributed to the thread.

I guess they won't because Associated Newspapers is a very rich and aggressive company and MN is not so much and it could cause them financial ruin.

I don't blame MN if they decide not to take on AN. But if so, maybe they should make it clear that your posts may appear in outlets of which you don't approve.

So: don't post things on MN that you don't want to see published elsewhere. Don't think that MN is a benign space or that the management is on your side.

Good post limitedperiodonly

Under this 'fair use', is it 33% of the entire thread that they can use or 33% of any one post?

That's a new low.

This is a new low for DM

I commented on the original thread, it was so moving.

Surely, it's a level of harassment , that it is unwanted attention and now child's name in papers.

It will stop mums reaching out to one another, just awful

This is awful. It is not in the public interest to have this 'reported' in the Fail. There must be something that can be done. This is exploiting someone's grief in a terrible way.

How can we complain?

I dont get how we can have Trading Standards and Advertising Standards and not Press Standards.
Oh wait, we do...www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/index.html

This is The Editors Code;
www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html

unfortunately there is nothing about crediting sources. Maybe that should be obligatory in these cases.

It would be a third of the whole piece. They seem to have used a great deal more than that. But I'm not an expert. I just know I wouldn't want to take on Associated Newspapers in court.

I'm not surprised that it's happened. Mail Online journalists are subject to an enormous amount of pressure to produce copy and their legal training and that of their managers and the scrutiny of properly qualified lawyers, is not the greatest.

Plus, if it's a problem for them, they can just take it down, which is what MNHQ have done with the original thread.

Thank you for responding MNHQ. It would be useful to understand if you have any plans to address this with the Daily Mail - or at least if you could confirm whether the OP's permission was sought by the journalist. If not, could you advise if you have made contact with her to warn her about this?

Do not click the DM link. It creates revenue for them and they know it is worth their while to feast on other people's grief.

Editors code of conduct (clause 4) on IPSO website:

"In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication handled sensitively. These provisions should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings."

Well, I don't think the publication has been handled sensitively. I suspect that it's not enough though. The complaint would need to come from MNHQ or the OP from what I understand if it was taken forward.

IPSO website says all other "concerns about taste and decency" should go to the editor of the publication. Brilliant

"It's a totally ghoulish, utterly lazy article."

This. I've used MN for emotional support many times. Usually when I've been at my lowest. If my outpourings (and I've never been through anything as heartbreaking as the OP) had been published in such a mawkish, rubbernecking way I would've been beyond upset.

Yes, it's a public forum but that doesn't make it news.

I do wonder if MN, has been a victim of its own success here: or rather, the poster has become a victim of MN's success. MN is know as being somewhere people can get real support when necessary, but at the same time the site has a really high public profile, something posters would do well to remember it seems.

However, no matter how high profile it is, surely, no one would expect their personal problems and grief to suddenly become a news item on the website of a national newspaper. Surely there are limited to what is acceptable, even in the seedy world of the DM.

twitter.com/ChildDeathHelp/status/725012645800239106

www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p09_fair_use

Well I'm not sure where you're all getting your 10% or 30%, but I see no mention of that here.